A recent report by Jason Ditz of Antiwar.com, entitled "U.S May Trade Missile Shield for Russian Support against Iran" 2/13/09 now provides further evidential clues to the dangerous change in strategic focus, coming as the Obama Administration dutifully follow the dictates of the Brzezinski rendition of the 'Great Game'. What this means is war against Russia and China through first sewing chaos in Asia . The nature of this new threat is not explained in Ditz's posting though. It has been strategic commentator, Webster Tarpley, who first spelt out the danger in the book Obama: The Postmodern Coup-The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, in forecasts which preceded western puppet Georgia 's attack on Russia as part of this scheme.
What we have now is a change away from a neocon centered foreign policy program to the revival of the mad doctrines of Zbigniew Brzezinski, through his new protégé Obama. Change thus means the playing of the Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard which means world domination through the neutralization of Russia and China . Of course Brzezinski acolyte Obama wrote his thesis at Columbia on instituting Soviet nuclear disarmament, which comes from Brzezinski's playbook, this is still part of the goal. Evidence is the attack on Russia , by Georgia through CIA/Soros puppet Mikhail Saakashvilli. Of course Soros is one of the main money bags behind Obama as well. It is Tarpley's analysis in first identified the markings of the Obama Presidential campaign as being identical to the CIA's "people power/color revolutions' set in the former soviet sphere typified by elections in the Ukraine, Georgia and else where. This is all part of the general danger.
To put expose the danger of such 'change' into context, let us consider this quote from Vladamir Putin "Where do you get a public opinion that we should fully disarm and then, according to some theoreticians, such as Brzezinski, divide our territory into three or four states? If there is such an opinion, I would disagree with it." June 4, 2007 Putin has no delusions that many, especially on the left, in the U.S. have about Brzezinski. Putin knows history. Putin knows that it was Brzezinksi who first instigated arming the war in Afghanistan against the Russians. A sly trap set by Brzezinski, who later instigated the arming of the Muhajadeen and those elements that would become the CIA's Al Qaeda multi purpose black op.
Further background to this latest development is the fact, provided by Obama Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, is that relates the story in a speech how on Nov 19, 1974 he and Brzezinksi met with top ministers of Ayatolah Komeni to discuss arms for hostages, stating that their common enemy is Russia. SEC. GATES: I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. (Laughter.) I was in the first meeting that took place between a senior U.S. government official and the leadership of the Iranian government in Algiers at the end of October, 1979. Brzezinski -- the Iranian prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister asked to meet with Brzezinski, who was in Algiers for the 25th anniversary of the Algerian Revolution and I was with him. He asked me to go as the note-taker. And he walked into that meeting and, in essence, said, "We will accept your revolution. We will recognize your country. We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah. We have a common enemy to your north. We can work together in the future." Their response was, "Give us the Shah." This as reported by the AP from the 2/29/08 address by Gates to the National Military University, confirming where arms for hostage started, and provides another angle with which to situate what Obama's ominous opportunism with Gates's speech which had plenty of emphasis on Russia as a problem.
Today we must recognize the danger that is presented to the world should Obama intervene to use the neocon's fixation on Iran , to put forth a strategy that then creates a rift between Iran and Russia . First we must understand that Russia and Iran 's relationship has not always been a friendly one, as a demonstrated by the Soviet's hegemonic attitudes. Be that as it may, presently there is cooperation between Iran and Russia as regards economic development starting with the most important issue of the building of nuclear reactors in Iran . Such development is something we should welcome rather than using as the ruse or fuse with which to push needless conflict.
We know that from the Presidential Campaign that Obama talked about talking with the Iranians. While this would seem positive, astute observers realize a monster beneath the surface. Characterized as "appeasement' such a strategy of a new relationship with Iran can be understood that Obama seeks to use, rather than destroy Iran . The use of Iran would be to perhaps use it as part of the crescent surrounding Russia . Missile defenses
The Antiwar.com report quotes that the U.S would "be able to moderate the pace of the missile defenses in Europe ". Of course those missile defenses are in reality a concerted provocation against Russia form the get go, not a defense against an Iranian attack.
What is evident is that Obama plans to slyly use Russia to fulfill his political assignments for Israel and AIPAC, while using that conflict to become the smokescreen for more sinister developments. To those who will critique my analysis as conjecture, one must consider that people have already been focused on other things such as the atrocities in the Gaza strip, to consider the preemptive atrocities of Obama against Pakistan .
It is Obama's attacks upon Pakistan , which are another part of the theater of war and destabilization of Asia which is Obama's real MO, his Modus Operandi. This is something right out of the secret playbook of Brzezinki, not the one sold at Borders. Obama is the first political figure to call for the bombing of Pakistan , summer 2007 on the campaign trail. This outrage, along with the "getting Al Qaeda" machismo he strutted on the hustings, displayed Obama's true colors as the war monger. Of course the left was too fixated upon Iraq and believed in the left gatekeeper's blowback fairy tale as regards 9/11 to really be able to call Obama into question. To even more vigorously question Obama's funding of the war was something lacking from the hysteria of those so easily taken in by the slogan, "Change". Obama of course will keep troops and mercenaries in Iraq , though with enough cover to appease try to appease the peace movement.
Now we have a very dangerous change, one which puts a politically correct facelift upon American imperialism, with plenty of left cover from a largely co-opted left opposition. Of course one does not need a Weatherman, Dick Cheney or Joe Biden to warn us about catastrophes to challenge the nation under Obama's watch, for the bomber is already occupying the White House. Provocations precede Obama's henchmen, such as Richard Holbrooke, in his visit to Ahfganistan, where suicide bombs went off. This of course is just what is on order to help justify Obama's desire for more troops in Ahfganistan, a piece of pure warmongering insanity, especially as Obama has already rejected peace talks with the Taliban.
The great fear is that another 9/11 might visit us, to which Obama would be given the green light to seek revenge, as a distraction to the fact that Obama's Wall Street dictated economic policies will not work. Blaming terrorists was Bush's solution; Obama continues this policy by continuing and expanding the wars in Asia and invoking such outrages as the Bush Administrations 'State Secrets" policy to hide its lies and dictatorial proclivities. As such we must be vigilant by developing a deeper strategic understanding of what lies behind the lies that lead to war.
By Bruce Marshall
OBAMA The Postmodern Coup
Read Historian Webster Griffin Tarpley's book here: