Syrian opposition revealed as Saudi-Israeli project

FSA Leader Defects to ISIL and Exposes FSA as a Saudi-Israeli Run Project

The FSA (Free Syria Army),  are very closely linked to al Nusrah - in fact thousands of FSA defected to al Nusrah in 2013. 

Al Nusrah is the CIA's terrorist brigade of choice. Regardless of their moniker, they are all wanton murderers & have produced videos of executions & beheadings.

Here is a video of an interview with a defecting FSA commander. He admits that the FSA are Saudi-Israeli project overseen by US, Jordanian, Saudi, Qatar & Emrati intelligence. Salman bin Sultan is identifed as being in charge of the 'Syrian Revolution' file.

He also mentions Salim Idriss - one of the men McCain met in Syria in 2013 - as being part of this inner circle.

Key addresses the UN (to get a seat on the Securiy Council)

Everyone is sitting down to diplomacy now – except for Our Dear Leader who wants a seat on the Security Council.

Ever the businessman it is forever the hidden agenda.

Key makes combative speech to UN

Prime Minister John Key has told the United Nations General Assembly it can not wash its hands of the Syrian crisis

Radio NZ,

27 September, 2013

.

Mr Key's comments came moments before a crucial Security Council meeting on Syria began on Thursday, and he urged the council to adopt a resolution which dealt with the use of chemical weapons and which protected Syrian civilians.

The Security Council has reportedly apparently agreed on a resolution on the matter at its special meeting.

Before the meeting began the five permanent members of the council - the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain - had made a deal on what needed to be done.

But any formal agreement of the whole council might not be announced until Saturday.

Earlier, in his speech to the General Assembly, Mr Key had denounced the council's lack of action to end the conflict.

"This organisation would not also have been a powerless bystander to the Syrian tragedy for over two years if the lack of agreement among the Security Council's permanent members had not shielded the Assad regime."

Listen to more on Checkpoint

Disagreement blamed

Mr Key blamed disagreement among the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France for shielding the Syrian regime during the past 2-1/2 years of conflict in that country. He says the council must be reformed.

"We now seem to have a practice whereby the permanent members can not only block council actions through the veto, they also appear to have privileged access to information and can stop the council from meeting if it does not suit their collective purposes.

"Such behaviour has damaged the reputation and credibility of the wider organisation and must be challenged."

Mr Key says that is the approach New Zealand will adopt if it is elected to the Security Council for 2015/2016.

Listen to more on Checkpoint.

PM wants Syria held to account

Mr Key also urged the Security Council to hold the Syrian regime responsible for using chemical weapons to attack its own people.

He said the Security Council cannot ignore the report and those responsible for the attacks must be brought to account.

Any resolution passed by the council must also establish an effective mechanism for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons and provide for the protection of civilians.

Worries have also been raised about the extent of influence al Qaeda has over opposition groups in Syria.

Mr Key says it is a legitimate concern but not everyone agrees how serious it is.

He says a couple of leaders he has spoken to do not believe al Qaeda is a significant problem in Syria.

However, he concedes other countries are worried about its influence in the country.

Mr Key has already spoken at a special meeting on disarmament, at which he repeated New Zealand's concerns about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons

Robert Fisk on sarin gas alelgations

I would trust Robert Fisk over most things when it comes to the Middle East; he has no love for Bashar al-Assad.

Gas missiles 'were not sold to Syria'

Export papers seem to back Assad's denial over sarin attack – but Russians won't go into detail

Robert Fisk

the Independent,

22 September, 2013

While the Assad regime in Damascus has denied responsibility for the sarin gas missiles that killed around 1,400 Syrians in the suburb of Ghouta on 21 August, information is now circulating in the city that Russia's new "evidence" about the attack includes the dates of export of the specific rockets used and – more importantly – the countries to which they were originally sold. They were apparently manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1967 and sold by Moscow to three Arab countries, Yemen, Egypt and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Libya. These details cannot be verified in documents, and Vladimir Putin has not revealed the reasons why he told Barack Obama that he knows Assad's army did not fire the sarin missiles; but if the information is correct – and it is believed to have come from Moscow – Russia did not sell this particular batch of chemical munitions to Syria.

Since Gaddafi's fall in 2011, vast quantities of his abandoned Soviet-made arms have fallen into the hands of rebel groups and al-Qa'ida-affiliated insurgents. Many were later found in Mali, some in Algeria and a vast amount in Sinai. The Syrians have long claimed that a substantial amount of Soviet-made weaponry has made its way from Libya into the hands of rebels in the country's civil war with the help of Qatar – which supported the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi and now pays for arms shipments to Syrian insurgents.

There is no doubt that Syria has a substantial chemical weapons armoury. Nor that Syrian stockpiles contain large amounts of sarin gas 122mm missiles. But if the Russians have indeed been able to identify the specific missile markings on fragments found in Ghouta – and if these are from munitions never exported to Syria – the Assad regime will boast its innocence has been proven.

In a country – indeed a world – where propaganda is more influential than truth, discovering the origin of the chemicals that suffocated so many Syrians a month ago is an investigation fraught with journalistic perils. Reporters sending dispatches from rebel-held parts of Syria are accused by the Assad regime of consorting with terrorists. Journalists reporting from the government side of Syria's front lines are regularly accused of mouthing the regime's propaganda. And even if the Assad regime was not responsible for the 21 August attacks, its forces have committed war crimes aplenty over the past two years. Torture, massacre, the bombardment of civilian targets have long been proved.

Nevertheless, it also has to be said that grave doubts are being expressed by the UN and other international organisations in Damascus that the sarin gas missiles were fired by Assad's army. While these international employees cannot be identified, some of them were in Damascus on 21 August and asked a series of questions to which no one has yet supplied an answer. Why, for example, would Syria wait until the UN inspectors were ensconced in Damascus on 18 August before using sarin gas little more than two days later – and only four miles from the hotel in which the UN had just checked in? Having thus presented the UN with evidence of the use of sarin – which the inspectors quickly acquired at the scene – the Assad regime, if guilty, would surely have realised that a military attack would be staged by Western nations.

As it is, Syria is now due to lose its entire strategic long-term chemical defences against a nuclear-armed Israel – because, if Western leaders are to be believed, it wanted to fire just seven missiles almost a half century old at a rebel suburb in which only 300 of the 1,400 victims (if the rebels themselves are to be believed) were fighters. As one Western NGO put it yesterday: "if Assad really wanted to use sarin gas, why for God's sake, did he wait for two years and then when the UN was actually on the ground to investigate?"

The Russians, of course, have made similar denials of Assad's responsibility for sarin attacks before. When at least 26 Syrians died of sarin poisoning in Khan al-Assal on 19 March – one of the reasons why the UN inspectors were dispatched to Syria last month – Moscow again accused the rebels of responsibility. The Russians later presented the UN with a 100-page report containing its "evidence". Like Putin's evidence about the 21 August attacks, however, it has not been revealed.

A witness who was with Syrian troops of the army's 4th Division on 21 August – a former Special Forces officer considered a reliable source – said he saw no evidence of gas shells being fired, even though he was in one of the suburbs, Moadamiya, which was a target for sarin. He does recall the soldiers expressing concern when they saw the first YouTube images of suffocating civilians – not out of sympathy, but because they feared they would have to fight amid clouds of poison.

"It would perhaps be going beyond conspiracy theories to say the government was not involved," one Syrian journalist said last week, "but we are sure the rebels have got sarin. They would need foreigners to teach them how to fire it. Or is there a 'third force' which we don't know about? If the West needed an excuse to attack Syria, they got it right on time, in the right place, and in front of the UN inspectors."

The truth behind a 'No-Fly Zone'

Let's Be Clear: Establishing a 'No-Fly Zone' Is an Act of War

The term is a euphemism that obscures the gravity of what its advocates are suggesting -- a U.S. air attack on Syria.

The Atlantic,

29 May, 2013

Kudos to Josh Rogin for breaking the news that "the White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone inside Syria." But wouldn't it be a more powerful story without the euphemism?

Relying on the term "no-fly-zone" is typical in journalism. But that is a mistake. It obscures the gravity of the news.

Here's how an alternative version of the story might look: "The White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for bombing multiple targets inside Syria, constantly surveilling Syrian airspace alongside U.S. allies, and shooting down Syrian war planes and helicopters that try to fly around, perhaps for months."

The term "no-fly-zone" isn't analytically useless. It's just that folks using it as shorthand should make sure everyone reading understands that, as Daniel Larison put it right up in a headline, "Imposing a No-Fly-Zone in Syria Requires Starting a New War." That becomes clearer some paragraphs later in Rogin's article, when he discussed Senator John McCain's advocacy for a "no-fly-zone." "McCain said a realistic plan for a no-fly zone would include hundreds of planes, and would be most effective if it included destroying Syrian airplanes on runways, bombing those runways, and moving U.S. Patriot missile batteries in Turkey close to the border so they could protect airspace inside northern Syria," he wrote.

The article also quotes Robert Zarate, policy director at the hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative. His euphemisms of choice: "No doubt, the United States and its like-minded allies and partners are fully capable, without the use of ground troops, of obviating the Assad regime's degraded, fixed, and mobile air defenses and suppressing the regime's use of airpower."

Does anyone think he'd describe Syrian planes bombing a U.S. aircraft carrier as "obviating" our naval assets? The question before us is whether America should wage war in Syria by bombing its weapons, maintaining a presence in its airspace, and shooting at its pilots if they take off. On hearing the phrase "no-fly-zone," how many Americans would realize all that is involved?

I trust "start a war against Syria" would poll poorly.

That's why advocates of that course hide the consequences of what they propose behind a euphemism. If only there were a deliberative body that the Constitution charged with declaring war, so that it would be impossible to start any wars of choice without the voice of the people being heard.

BREAKING: Syria receives first S-300 shipment

Syria receives first shipment of Russian S-300 system: Lebanese sources

30 May, 2013

Lebanese sources have quoted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as saying that Damascus has received the first shipment of S-300 missile defense system from Russia.

President Assad also said that the second shipment of the Russian system will be delivered to his country soon, Lebanon's Al-Manar TV reports.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/30/306191/syria-receives-1st-s300-shipment/

Assad: Russia already delivered S-300 batteries

Syrian president warns that he’ll retaliate if attacked; Israeli defense official vows to prevent system becoming operational

Times of Israel,

30 May, 2013

Despite a concerted international effort to dissuade Moscow from following through with the controversial arms deal, Syrian President Bashar Assad has revealed that a shipment of the advanced, Russian-made S-300 — a state-of-the-art system that can intercept fighter jets and cruise missiles — has already arrived in his country.

In an interview with Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television scheduled to be broadcast Thursday night, the Syrian leader boasted that Syria had received the first batch of missiles and asserted that “the rest of the load will arrive soon,” the Lebanese daily Al Akhbar reported.

The planned delivery of the sophisticated system had created a tense standoff between Israel, Syria, and Russia, with Israel threatening to do “whatever it takes” to prevent the weapons being fielded, and Syria responding that it would retaliate in kind for any Israeli strike.

Last week, National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror told a gathering of European Union ambassadors that while Israel may not be able to prevent the delivery of S-300 batteries to Syria, it would act to prevent them from becoming operational.

During the closed-door briefing, which was attended by 27 diplomats, Amidror made it clear that even though Israel was determined to prevent the Syrians from deploying the missiles, that did not necessarily mean it would launch a military strike to destroy them, diplomats that were present at the meeting said, according to Hebrew media reports.

Amidror explained that while Russia was dead set on supplying the system, it was unclear when the batteries would become operational. The national security adviser added that Israel, together with the United States, would continue to act through diplomatic channels to prevent the S-300s from posing a threat. Israel hoped to persuade the Russians to withhold critical parts and training that were need to make the system operational, he said.

Amidror also opined that the main motivation for the Kremlin in providing the missiles was not so much an interest in becoming embroiled in the Israel-Syria standoff, but rather an attempt to engage the West in a game of one-upmanship over its support for rebels fighting the Assad regime, the diplomats said.

The Syrian president also told Al-Manar that his country would retaliate for any future Israeli attack on Syria, and said he would not “get in the way” of any Syrian groups that attempted to liberate the Golan Heights, which Israel captured during the 1967 Six Day War, Al Akhbar reported.

The complex S-300 air defense system, considered one of the most advanced in the world, takes about four months to become operational and would require intensive training including calibration that can only be carried out on-site in Syria, experts say.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Russian President Vladamir Putin earlier in May with a similar objective but, according to Haaretz, has since admitted to various European foreign ministers that his mission had failed and the deal would go ahead.

Israeli media reports earlier in the week said Netanyahu had warned Putin of a descent into war should Russia to go ahead with the delivery. Netanyahu said that if acquired by Assad, the S-300 “is likely to draw us into a response, and could send the region deteriorating into war,” Channel 2 reported.

The missile deal has ratcheted up tensions between Jerusalem and Damascus, which were already high following two airstrikes reportedly carried out by Israel on Syrian territory in early May, targeting a shipment of advanced missiles heading from Syria to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

Aside from the unique strategic capacities that the S-300 air defense missiles would afford Syria, putting planes taking off from central Israel and its main international airport within the missiles’ range, Jerusalem also fears that the system could fall into the hands of terror groups likes Hezbollah, which has become increasingly involved in fighting the Syrian rebels.

On Wednesday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem warned that Syria would “retaliate immediately” if Israel strikes on Syrian soil again.

“We’ve declared to the world that we will retaliate immediately if Israel attacks again,” Walid al-Moallem said in an interview with the Lebanese TV station Al-Mayadeen. ”Any aggression will be met with a response of a similar magnitude.”

On Tuesday night, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations said that the sale of the weapons was not the start of an arms race and recommended Israel stay calm over the deal.

In an interview with CNN, Vitaly Churkin suggested that Israel consider the risks involved in taking action against the missile delivery.

“The Israelis will keep a cool head and refrain from reckless actions,” he said, asserting that in the past Russia had responded to Israeli concerns about advanced weapons shipments falling into the wrong hands by guaranteeing that the arms would only go to their intended destinations.

Israeli attack on Syria - Haaretz

Syrian TV: Israel bombed military site near Damascus

Syrian opposition claims bombed site was used to develop chemical weapons; Syrian army denies report that convoy carrying weapons to Hezbollah was bombed; U.S. official confirms Israel behind attack.

Haaretz,

30 January, 2013

Israeli forces attacked a target on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight, Western diplomats and regional security sources said on Wednesday, at a time of growing concern over the fate of Syrian chemical and conventional weapons.

The Israel Defense Forces refused to confirm or deny the report. "We do not comment on reports of this kind," an IDF spokeswoman said.

The reported attack came soon after the Lebanese media said that Israel Air Force jets had flown over Lebanon's airspace in three separate missions late Tuesday and early Wednesday. There was no confirmation of that report from Israel, either.

Live Blog - Haaretz brings you the latest updates in real time

10:00 P.M. Sky News in Arabic reports that Syrian opposition activists claim that the research institute that was attacked is known to be a weapons development center, which also produces chemical weapons.

9:20 P.M. Syrian state TV and army spokesmen say that Israeli warplanes bombed a military research center in the Jermana area northwest of the capital, Damascus, killing two people and wounding five. The report also said the strike caused material damage and the center was used to advance Syrian military capabilities.

8:30 P.M. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked during his daily press conference about reports of an Israeli attack in Syria, responded: "No comment. I refer you to the Israeli government." (Barak Ravid)

7:05 P.M. Speaking to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, a U.S.­ government official confirms that the Israeli strike hit a convoy of trucks. U.S. officials, however, say they are tracking Syria's chemical weapons and that they still appear to be solidly under regime control. Israel suspects that Damascus obtained a battery of SA-17s from Russia after an alleged Israeli airstrike in 2007 that destroyed an unfinished Syrian nuclear reactor. The Israeli military declined to comment, and Syrian officials and state media continue to be silent on the issue. (AP)

6:48 P.M. The website Lebanon Now reports that the convoy that was attacked departed from somewhere around the city of al-Kassir in western Syria, located some 15 kilometers from the Lebanese border, and was headed for the Hermel area in northern Lebanon.  The source added that the convoy was carrying self-propelled strategic weapons meant for Hezbollah. (Jacky Khoury)

6:10 P.M. Speaking to the Associated Press, two "regional security officials" say Israel conducted an air strike inside Syria overnight near the border with Lebanon. While they did not say what the target was, they did say that Israel had been making plans in the days leading up to the air strike to hit a shipment of weapons bound for the anti-Israel militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. According to the officials, the shipment included sophisticated, Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles, which would be strategically "game-changing" in the hands of Hezbollah. (AP)

5:40 P.M. Al-Arabiya reports that the target of the air strike was a convoy of trucks carrying advanced anti-aircraft missiles. Sky News correspondent Sam Kiley, quoting security sources not connected to the attack, also reported that the attack was carried out against trucks carrying anti-aircraft missiles capable of limiting the freedom of action of Israeli Air Force jets over Lebanon. Kiley also suggested that the missiles could be of the type used against naval ships.

4:11 P.M. Lebanese security official says no evidence found of Israeli strikes on Lebanon's side of the border. (Haaretz)

4:07 P.M. A few hours after first reports, both Al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya are still ignoring the incident. (Haaretz)

4:02 P.M. Sky News Foreign Affairs Editor Tim Marshall: "If you put it all together and if there is movement of significant weapons coming out of Syria toward Lebanon, it would be probably be one of two things: Chemical weapons, or equally problematical for the Israelis, the air defense systems that Syria has many of. Both of those are a red line for the Israelis."

3:57 P.M. Minister Silvan Shalom: "The international community has stated more than once that it takes developments in Syria, which might have negative ramifications, very seriously. Any negative development, of course, should be prevented." (Army Radio)

3:23 P.M. Military Intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi and National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror return from consultations in Washington and Moscow. (Barak Ravid)

3:20 P.M. Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, speaking on Israel Radio, was asked if there was unusual activity on the northern front. "The entire world has said more than once that it takes developments in Syria very seriously, developments which can begin negative directions. And therefore the world, led by [U.S.] President [Barack] Obama who has said this more than once, is taking all possibilities into account and of course any development which is a development in a negative direction would be something that needs stopping and prevention."

3:08 P.M. Lebanese news site Naharnet: Total of 12 Israeli fighter jets enter Lebanese air space over last 24 hours.

3:03 P.M. Security source tells AFP: The air force bombed a weapons convoy just as it was crossing from Syria into Lebanon.

The site bombed by Israel Air Force fighter jets, according to Syrian TV.Google Earth

2:56 P.M. The French newspaper Le Figaro: Israeli security sources say the target of the attack was a weapons convoy traveling from Syria into Lebanon. Not clear whether the attack took place inside Syria or in Lebanese territory.

2:27 P.M. Reuters reports that Israel has sent its national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, to Russia and its military intelligence chief Major-General Aviv Kochavi to the United States for consultations.

1:58 P.M. Laura Rozen, of Al-Monitor, posts on Twitter that the "#Israel jets said to have struck alleged weapons convoy in Syria, after #IDF intel chief consultations in Washington".

1:45 P.M. Security source: There was definitely a hit in the border area";  A Western diplomat in the region who asked about the strike said "something has happened", without elaborating.

An activist in Syria who works with a network of opposition groups around the country said that she had heard of a strike in southern Syria from her colleagues but could not confirm. 

The sources, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, had no further information about what might have been hit or where precisely the attack happened. 

Background

Earlier this week, the Lebanon Army reported that the IAF had violated Lebanon's airspace on Saturday in four different incidents. The Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star reported that IAF fighter jets were seen flying around the Beka'a Valley.

Also Saturday, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal said that an explosion struck a weapons storage facility in an area of southern Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah. The report was not confirmed by Lebanon's government or by the Lebanese army. The latter said it had conducted a number of controlled explosions on Saturday of munitions left over from the Second Lebanon War.

According to the daily, the explosion took place in the small town of Machghara, located in the Beka'a Valley. It said that a cloud of smoke was seen rising from the site, which was quickly cordoned off by Hezbollah forces.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned his cabinet ministers of the risk that chemical weapons from Syria could be falling into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"It is necessary to look at our surroundings, both at what is happening with Iran and its proxies, and what is happening in other arenas - lethal weaponry in Syria, which is steadily breaking up," Netanyahu said during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.

Also Sunday, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said that any sign that Syria's grip on its chemical weapons was slipping, as President Bashar al-Assad fights rebels trying to overthrow him, could trigger Israeli intervention.

The commander of the Israel Air Force, Major General Amir Eshel, on Tuesday issued his own warning over the volatility of Syria and its weapons. Addressing the international space conference in Herzliya, Eshel described Syria as a "country falling apart", adding: "Nobody has any idea right now what is going to happen in Syria on the day after, and how the country is going to look. This [sectarian crisis] is happening in a place with a huge weapons arsenal, some of which are new and advanced, and some of which are not conventional."

Israeli sources said on Tuesday that Syria's advanced conventional weapons would represent as much of a threat to Israel as its chemical arms should they fall into the hands of Syrian rebel forces or Hezbollah guerrillas based in Lebanon.

The real reasons for war on Syria

CONFRONTING IRAN, "PROTECTING ISRAEL": The Real Reason for America's War on Syria

Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research,

11 June, 2012

Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton is calling for an R2P humanitarian military intervention in Syria to curb the atrocities allegedly ordered by the government of president Bashar Al Assad. In a twisted logic, Clinton recognizes that while "opposition forces" are integrated by Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, the government rather than the terrorists is held responsible, without a shred of evidence, for the ongoing massacre of civilians. Amply documented, these sectarian killings and atrocities are being committed by foreign mercenaries and militia which are armed and supported by the Western military alliance. The killings are carried out quite deliberately as part of a diabolical covert operation. The enemy is then blamed for the resulting atrocities. The objective is to justify a military agenda on humanitarian grounds. In US military jargon, it's called a "massive casualty producing event", the historical origins of  which go back to "Operation Northwoods", an infamous 1962 Pentagon Plan, consisting in  killing civilians in the Miami Cuban community, with a view to justifying a war on Cuba. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Killing Innocent Civilians as part of a US Covert Op. Mobilizing Public Support for a R2P War against Syria, Global Research, May 30, 2012)   "Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro."  (U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News emphasis added. This Secret Pentagon document was declassified and can be readily consulted, See Operation Northwoods, See also National Security Archive, 30 April 2001) In the logic of Operation Northwoods, the killings in Syria are carried out to "create a helpful wave of indignation", to drum up public opinion in favor of an R2P  US-NATO operation against Syria. "The international community cannot sit idly by, and we won’t”, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. What lies behind this outburst of humanitarian concern by "the international community". Is America coming to the rescue of the Syrian people? What is the real reason for America's war on Syria? This question is addressed in a lead article by James P. Rubin, a Bloomberg executive editor and former State department official under the Clinton administration. The article appears in this month's Foreign Policy Magazine under the clear-cut title: "The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria" In an unusual twist, "the answer to the question", namely "the real reason" is provided in the article's subtitle: "Cutting Iran's link to the Mediterranean Sea is a strategic prize worth the risk.". The subtitle should dispel --in the eyes of the reader-- the illusion that US foreign policy has an underlying "humanitarian  mandate".  Pentagon and US State department documents as well as independent reports confirm that military action against Syria has been contemplated by Washington and Tel Aviv for more than 20 years.   Targeting Iran, "Protecting Israel"  According to James P. Rubin, the war plans directed against Syria are intimately related to those pertaining to Iran. They are part of the same US-Israeli military agenda which consists in weakening Iran with a view to "protecting Israel". The latter objective is to be carried out through a pre-emptive attack against Iran:  "We're not done with the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran" says James P. Rubin.  According to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies ("a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism"),  the humaniitarian concern is not the primary objective but rather as "a means to an end": "If the Arab League is unmoved by the massacres of Syrian women and children (their angry eyes fixed as ever on Israel), and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation doesn’t give a fig about Muslims slaughtering Muslims, why should we Americans expend an ounce of energy? ...[The answer]   Because Syria, under the Assad dictatorship, is Iran’s most important ally and asset. And Iran is the single most important strategic threat facing the U.S. — hands down." (SeeNational Review, May 30, 2012) The military roadmap to Tehran goes through Damascus. The unspoken objective of the US-NATO-Israeli sponsored insurgency in Syria is to destabilize Syria as a Nation State and undermine Iran's influence in the region (including its support of the Palestinian Liberation movement and Hezbollah). The underlying objective is also to eliminate all forms of resistance to the Zionist State: "That is where Syria comes in, says James P, Rubin. It is the strategic relationship between the Islamic Republic and the Assad regime that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security. Over the three decades of hostility between Iran and Israel, a direct military confrontation has never occurred -- but through Hezbollah, which is sustained and trained by Iran via Syria, the Islamic Republic has proven able to threaten Israeli security interests. The collapse of the Assad regime would sunder this dangerous alliance. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, arguably the most important Israeli decision-maker on this question, recently told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that the Assad regime's fall "will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world ... and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." (The Real Reason to Intervene in Syria - By James P. Rubin | Foreign Policy, June 2, 2012, emphasis added) US-Israeli War Plans directed against Syria Rubin candidly outlines the contours of US military intervention in Syria, which is to be implemented in close liaison with Israel. A diplomatic solution will not work, nor will economic sanctions: "only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator's stance" says Rubin: "U.S. President Barack Obama's administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria similar to the campaign in Libya, for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians, the longtime patron of the Assad regime, are staunchly opposed." (Ibid) Washington's first step, according to James P. Rubin, should be to work with "its allies", the Arab sheikdoms --Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey-- "to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces." This "first step" has already been launched. It was implemented at the very outset of the insurgency in March 2012. The US and its allies have been actively supporting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) terrorists for over a year. The organization and training consisted in the deployment of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, alongside the incursion of French, British, Qatari and Turkish special forces inside Syria. US-NATO sponsored mercenaries are recruted and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Sidetracking the UN Rubin's proposed "second step" is "to secure international support for a coalition air operation." outside the mandate of the United Nations."Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the U.N. Security Council" says Rubin. The air operation contemplated by Rubin is an all out war scenario, similar to the NATO air raids conducted in Libya.  Rubin is not expressing a personal opinion on the role of the UN. The option of "sidetracking" the UN Security Council has already been endorsed by Washington. The violaiton of international law does not seem to be an issue. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice confirmed in late May, in no uncertain terms, that "the worst and most probable scenario" in Syria might be the option of "acting outside of the UN Security Council's authority".  "In the absence of either of those two scenarios, there seems to me to be only one other alternative, and that is indeed the worst case, which seems unfortunately at the present to be the most probable. And that is that the violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity... The Council's unity is exploded, the Annan plan is dead and members of this Council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they're prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this Council." Actions outside UN Security Council Likely in Syria - Rice | World | RIA Novosti, May 31, 2012 Rubin also points to "the reluctance of some European states" (without mentioning the countries) to participate in an air operation against Syria: "this [military] operation will have to be a unique combination of Western and Middle East countries. Given Syria's extreme isolation within the Arab League, it should be possible to gain strong support from most Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. U.S. leadership is indispensable, since most of the key countries will follow only if Washington leads." The article calls for continued arming of the Syrian Free Army (FSA) as well carrying out air raids directed against Syria. No ground operations are to be envisaged. The air campaign would be used --as in the case of Libya-- to support the FSA foot soldiers integrated by mercenaries and Al Qaeda affiliated brigades: "Whether an air operation should just create a no-fly zone that grounds the regimes' aircraft and helicopters or actually conduct air to ground attacks on Syrian tanks and artillery should be the subject of immediate military planning. ... The larger point is that as long as Washington stays firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, à la Kosovo and Libya, the cost to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes." (Rubin, op cit) While the participation of Israel in military operations is not mentioned, the thrust of Rubin's article points to active cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv in military and intelligence affairs, including the conduct of covert operations in support of the opposition rebels. This coordination would also be carried out in the context of the bilateral military-intelligence cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey. "Coming to the rescue of the Syrian people" under a fake "humanitarian" R2P mandate is intended to destabilize Syria, weaken Iran and enable Israel to exert greater political control and influence over neighboring Arab states including Lebanon and Syria.  A war on Syria is also a war on Palestine. It would weaken  the resistance movement in the occupied territories. It would reinforce the Netanyahu government's ambitions to create a "Greater Israel", initially, through the outright annexation of the Palestinian territories:  "With the Islamic Republic deprived of its gateway to the Arab world, the Israelis' rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on its nuclear facilities would diminish. A new Syrian regime might eventually even resume the frozen peace talks regarding the Golan Heights. In Lebanon, Hezbollah would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor, since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance, and missiles. All these strategic benefits combined with the moral purpose of saving tens of thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime ... make intervention in Syria a calculated risk, but still a risk worth taking." (Rubin, op cit) War Crimes in the name of human rights: What we really need is "Regime Change" in the United States of America.... and Israel.