by Gerard Donnelly Smith
(Swans - September 25, 2006) While he was still secretary of state, Colin Powell said, "We believe in light of this new environment, they should review their actions and behavior, not only with respect to who gets haven in Syria, and weapons of mass destruction, but especially the support of terrorist activity. And so we have a new situation in the region, and we hope that all the nations in the region will now review their past practices and behavior."
Not officially designated as a member of the "Axis of Evil," Syria has long been in the top-ten of "terrorist" nations according to the CIA. Now with "regime change" fully and bloodily enforced in Iraq, a new "neighborhood watch" program has begun. Bush has alleged that Syria, as well as Iran, seeks to develop weapons of mass destruction, and that both have actively supported and harbored terrorists. The world, and especially Iran and North Korea, has seen how America deals with terrorists and those who harbor terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, boasts the President of the United States.
Ari Fleischer insisted that "It is well corroborated that Syria has such a program [to develop weapons of mass destruction]," that they are "trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve elements," and that it was "highly probable" that Syria had pursued biological weapons:
I can only say to you that it should not be unexpected that the United States for a considerable period of time has said through diplomatic channels that nations that are rogue nations need to clean up their act... They should not harbor terrorists. They should not produce weapons of mass destruction.
Iran continues to develop a nuclear energy program, which the Bush administration claims will become a nuclear weapons program. In response to Ahmadinejad's refusal to stop what he insists is a nuclear energy program, Bush rattled: "There must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."
What must Iran, Syria, or any other nation do to "clean up their act"? What did Powell mean by "review their past practices and behavior"? Reviewing the last ten years of sanctions against the now "changed" regime in Iraq, one must ask "is it possible to 'clean up' one's act enough to satisfy the Bush administration?" Scott Ritter, who led UN weapons inspections, validated that Saddam Hussein had cleaned up his act. In the end, did it matter whether the Iraqi "terrorist regime" cooperated or not? The Bush administration still used three falsehoods to justify invasion and occupation: 1) Iraq possessed WMDs, 2) Iraq was involved with 9/11, and 3) Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda.
For Iraq, cleaning up one's act meant 600,000 Iraqis dead from sanctions, 100,000 dead from the "regime-change" process, and an escalating civil war. Damned if you cooperate, damned if you don't? The rhetoric starts again with Iran!
In fact, according retired US Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, US military operations in Iran have begun: "We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming." Even if Iran did suspend its nuclear program would the administration call off the dogs?
So what do the Knights of the New World Order expect from Syria, Iran, or any other alleged "terrorist nation"? What will qualify as cooperation, cleaning up, or review? Will the UN be asked to mobilize inspection teams? Would the Iranian government cooperate with such a plan? What if they didn't? Would the US/UK invade? What if they did? Would the dogs of war listen to the inspectors? Ask Scott Ritter.
Should the governments of Syria and Lebanon "review" their policies concerning Hezbollah? Would a more moderate Hezbollah be enough review or cleaning up? Obviously groups defined as "terrorist" (Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like) will have to be cleaned out. Anything less will be seen as non-cooperation. The governments of the Middle East have been asked to round-up these "illegal combatants," then ship them to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite incarceration. Would anything less will be seen as non-cooperation?
Perhaps President Ahmadinejad should just capitulate now. As the Bush regime gears up its campaign for the 2008 elections, the intentions toward Iran are clear. President Ahmadinejad's choices seem inevitable: capitulate or face military action. Bush seems unwilling to negotiate.
As the terror propaganda increases, as the Iraq civil war escalates, as the US-supported Olmert regime encircles the Palestinian people with razor wire and twenty-foot walls, perhaps the world will begin to understand President Fidel Castro's warning:
The power and prerogatives of that country's [U.S] President are so extensive, and the economic, technological and military power network in that nation is so pervasive that due to circumstances that fully escape the will of the American people, the world is coming under the rule of Nazi concepts and methods.
Perhaps President Castro is wrong. Perhaps Chávez is wrong. Perhaps the Bush regime has only the best intentions for its friends in the military-industrial complex that now support world trade, one world currency, and one world order. Perhaps what President Castro has called "the rule of Nazi concepts and methods" is nothing more than good old US capitalism and the privatization of resources by various negotiation tactics and strategies.
However, one cannot deny that these new "global" enterprises will be in US interests. US interests are always tied to US national security. If anyone threatens this "new situation," then the "light" will shine on him. It is no accident that the symbol for the Homeland Security Department is the "Eye of the Illuminati" casting a "light" on the Middle East.
For over a decade we've brought you uninterrupted ad-free advocacy work free of charge. But while our publication is free to you, we are long on friends and short on cash. We need you, our readers, to help us financially. Please consider sending anow. Thank you.