Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Military bases and the Attack on Syria and Iran

James mentioned this
"A few years ago I remember reading about how the Israelis have aircraft stationed at a Turkish Air Force base in the east of Turkey near the Syrian border. I'm sure they're still there and getting a fresh paint job in Turkish colours. The US also has nuclear weapons stationed there with the Turkish armed forces."
The map below shows the US military bases surrounding Iran. Iran a threat? Really?

However if one looks at Syria.......
To the North/West, this is the airbase that James is referencing.
The airbase that attacks on Syria will most certainly be launched from.
The idea that the US and Israel will not be involved, have not been involved in the destabilization of Syria have been absurd. To say the least.
The map says it all.
The text that came with the map was concerned with Iran. Iran is the next domino in the NATO game.

I will share the entire article which hails from space4peace

This map tells the whole story. Each star represents a U.S. military base. In the middle, in blue, is Iran. Iran has no military bases outside its borders. Just north of Iran is Georgia that has essentially become a U.S./NATO base. Turkey belongs to NATO. Iran has been checkmated. North of Georgia is Russia. Can there be any wonder why Russia is so alarmed about an attack on Iran?

Following the recent spy drone fiasco over Iran the U.S. has been working hard to justify these flights. In an Associated Press story yesterday it was reported that the covert operations in play are "much bigger than people appreciate," said Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser under George W. Bush. "But the U.S. needs to be using everything it can." Hadley said that if Iran continues to defy U.N. resolutions and doesn't curb its nuclear ambitions, the quiet conflict "will only get nastier."

Hadley's statement "But the U.S. needs to be using everything it can" has the sound of immanent danger, of desperation. But after looking at this map where does the danger really lie? Iran is actually no danger to anyone. The real danger is that the U.S./NATO/Israel have their itchy fingers on the war trigger and could attack at any time.

One last thing is Mr. Hadley himself. Unknown to the public at large, Stephen Hadley carried on a quiet career in the shadow of Brent Scowcroft and Condoleeza Rice. A business lawyer convicted of fraud, he became the counselor for the largest arms manufacturer in the world, Lockheed Martin. He advised the candidate George W. Bush, helped write the U.S.'s new aggressive nuclear doctrine, helped create the Department of Homeland Security, supervised new entries into NATO, and helped sell the invasion of Iraq. Ever faithful, he protected Bush the father from the Irangate scandal and Bush the son from the lies of the Iraq war. He found himself rewarded by becoming George W. Bush's National Security Advisor.

You see some crime does pay?!

At the beginning of the 1980s, Mr. Steven Hadley ran an insurance fraud of close to $1.1 million. He was discovered, found guilty by a court in Iowa, and forced to reimburse the money. To erase any trace to his crime, he changed his name to Stephen John Hadley.

When Ronald Reagan took the White House, Mr. Hadley stayed in the private sector. However, in 1986, the Irangate scandal broke. President Reagan appointed a commission of three wise men to "investigate". It was composed of the Texan Senator John Tower, Edmund Muskie, and Brent Scowcroft who called Stephen J. Hadley to his side. In spite of the evidence, the commission concluded that President Reagan and Vice-President Bush were innocent. They found that the financing of the Contras in Nicaragua through the trafficking of drugs and illegal weapons sales to Iran was a secret initiative of over-zealous members of the National Security Council, put into place without the knowledge of their superiors. No big heads rolled.

As lawyer for Lockheed Martin, Hadley worked with the directors of the firm, including Lyne Cheney (wife of Dick). He became close with Bruce P. Jackson, the vice-president of the firm in charge of creating new markets. Together they initiated the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO into which they brought Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. The Committee engineered the entry of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into NATO in 1999. Then that of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Each time, the leaders of the new member states were solicited to bring their armies up to the scale (interoperability) with NATO, in other words, to purchase new military hardware from Lockheed Martin.

Global Network board member Karl Grossman reported 10 years ago that Hadley was also instrumental in helping Donald Rumsfeld write his report calling for U.S. control and domination of space. "Space is going to be important. It has a great future in the military," Hadley told the Air Force Association Convention in a 2001 speech. Introduced as an "adviser to Governor George W. Bush," Hadley said that Bush's "concern has been that the [Clinton] Administration...doesn't reflect a real commitment to missile defense." In 1998 Rumsfeld's commission reversed a 1995 finding by the nation's intelligence agencies that the country was not in imminent danger from ballistic missiles acquired by new powers, declaring that "rogue states" did pose such a threat. The answer? Missile defense.

It is obvious that Hadley has been at this game a very long time. His connections to Lockheed Martin, and even the Bush administration, have been long forgotten. So when he is quoted in a current news story few see the irony of him defending CIA spy drone flights over Iran. It is good that we take a moment though and remember the real "his-story" otherwise we are likely to repeat the terror and carnage of past U.S. snake oil invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.


  1. Hadley, what a sack of shit!

    I was wondering why Syria has apparently disappeared from the CBC BBC radar today.
    Seems as if one NGO still has a small degree of integrity and has dared to criticize the NATO backed rebels.
    Human Rights Watch.
    The dynamic of their statement implies to me that too many of their rank and file members and workers are demanding truth on Syria, so this report was done in response.
    The Sarah Leah Witson quote about Syrian government crimes is the only aspect of this report getting play in corporate media.

    Oh well, CBC/BBC are using this "slow news day" to keep their sheep focused on understanding how ONLY ONE shooter did the deed in Afghanistan resulting in 16 deaths of mostly women and kids.
    Raping killing and burning the bodies, this was quite the revenge mission for the USA.
    To see NPR, DemocracyNow, PBS, Huffpost, rawstory and all the good Obama PR outlets sing in perfect harmony with the US military on this one shows how pervasive our propaganda matrix really is.

    1. The way the media has handled the Afghanistan killings is atrocious. Now it's story after story putting this violence in context, asking us to see if from the pov of the killers.

      Plus, as Fisk demonstrated, most of the media isn't even reporting the startling fact that the top American commanders warned the troops about killing in retaliation like this.

      The media is also pushing what is an obvious lie--that one guy did it. The witnesses say multiple people did it yet the media has barely mentioned this fact. There should not only be a scandal about the event, but the military covering up the event and blaming in one one guy that fell on his sword. And then there should be a scandal for the media that are covering up the cover up. But yeah, yet another instance of media propaganda.

      Deadly propaganda.

  2. Good post Penny. I like the map and the discussion of the regional situation.

    On a somewhat related note, since the article discusses Georgia and Russia, I was searching the Columbia Journalism Review for any mention of the recent reporting in Syria (I haven't found anything on the subject--which is *weird*--although they have a recent piece on the corruption of financial reporters), and I came across this review of a new book on Putin.

    The author of the book is convinced that Putin is using the same tactics as the Americans and NATO are currently using in Syria--namely, faking terrorism and controlling the media:

    "Most startling of all is Gessen’s assertion, presented as established truth, that the series of apartment bombings in 1999 that killed hundreds of Moscow citizens were conducted not by Chechen separatists, but by the Federal Security Service (FSB) with Putin then at the helm. This mocked-up terrorist attack ensured stepped-up, not to mention justified, military combat in Chechnya, along with Yeltsin’s early ousting and Putin’s fast-tracked takeover.

    It is with these explosive revelations that Gessen truly excels. Her section on Chechnya is harrowing, with pitiless depictions of Russian atrocities and the relentless, almost arbitrary military pounding of Grozny. She then moves on to recount and review the details of two bloody, tragic sieges—those of the Moscow theater in 2002 and the school in Beslan in 2004. Both cases culminated in botched hostage rescues, leading Gessen to suspect more FSB foul play instead of the party-line blame attributed to Chechen and North Ossetian terrorists: “There is a reason that Russian troops in both Moscow and Beslan acted in ways that maximized bloodshed; they actually aimed to multiply the fear and the horror.” The 2000 Kursk submarine disaster in which 118 seamen died is also revisited, and although Gessen does not accuse the Kremlin of sinking the sub, she rigorously vilifies Putin for his negligent handling of the tragedy’s aftermath.

    Throughout, Gessen paints a bleak picture of the “hijacked state media” and the gradual though systematic erosion of freedom of speech. The elimination of those courageous enough to speak or write about injustice reminds us that although the KGB may now operate under a new moniker, its practices remain the same. Conspicuously, many political opponents have been dispatched by poisoning. . . ."

    Has Russia been creating big media terror events the last decade or so to benefit the secret elite? Just like the U.S?

    Frankly, I don't know what game is being played with Russia. Russia seemed to be the victim in the propaganda war in the Georgian war. But maybe that was not a real clash between powers but a fake clash, or maybe it was merely one squabble in an otherwise happy relationship. Or, maybe it really was real sniping between two foes.

    But now I wonder if the doubt about leaders like Putin aren't warranted. The story about the Super Bowl ring does seem strange.

  3. Seems like Turkey is being used and NATO will have to be involved. It also seems to me that Russia will not do anything to really stop it. There were just reports of Russia sending troops but it seems exaggerated and Russia seems to be walking away from offending. Russia has already stated it interprets its treaty with Syria as not to require mutual military defense, and therefore Russia will be powerless to stop an attack.

    It's looking like the Turkey military will be used to goad Syria into a fight and then maybe goad the Iranians? I had heard at some point that the Iranians were sending troops. I would think the Iranians, Syrians, and Lebanese would realize soon they are on their own and that Russia and China will not save the day. They may treat an attack on one as an attack on all. They may all retaliate after an invasion by Turkey (which is really U.S./Israel/Turkey/NATO).

  4. Not forgetting the not-so-secret-secret fact that the US fly in and out of Northern Cyprus via the Turkish controlled runways of Ercan and other areas of the island (I don't have the names)!