A New World War for a New World Order, The Origins of World War III

[Pastor Dale Morgan]

*Perilous Times, Globalisation and The New World Order

A New World War for a New World Order, The Origins of World War III*

Politics / New World Order Dec 17, 2009 - 07:46 AM

By: Andrew_G_Marshall
Global Research

Politics

I have analyzed US and NATO geopolitical strategy since the fall of the
Soviet Union, in expanding the American empire and preventing the rise
of new powers, containing Russia and China. This Part examines the
implications of this strategy in recent years; following the emergence
of a New Cold War, as well as analyzing the war in Georgia, the attempts
and methods of regime change in Iran, the coup in Honduras, the
expansion of the Afghan-Pakistan war theatre, and spread of conflict in
Central Africa. These processes of a New Cold War and major regional
wars and conflicts take the world closer to a New World War. Peace can
only be possible if the tools and engines of empires are dismantled. -
Author: Andrew_G_Marshall

Eastern Europe: Forefront of the New Cold War

In 2002, the Guardian reported that, “The US military build-up in the
former Soviet republics of central Asia is raising fears in Moscow that
Washington is exploiting the Afghan war to establish a permanent, armed
foothold in the region.” Further, “The swift construction of US military
bases is also likely to ring alarm bells in Beijing.”[1]

In 2004, it was reported that US strategy “is to position U.S. forces
along an "arc of instability" that runs through the Caribbean, Africa,
the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and southern Asia. It is in
these parts of the world --generally poor, insular and unstable --that
military planners see the major future threats to U.S. interests.”[2]

In 2005, it was reported that talks had been going on between the US and
Poland since 2002, along with various other countries, “over the
possibility of setting up a European base to intercept long-range
missiles.” It was further reported that, “such a base would not have
been conceivable before Poland joined Nato in 1999.”[3]

In November of 2007 it was reported that, “Russia threatened to site
short-range nuclear missiles in a second location on the European
Union's border yesterday if the United States refuses to abandon plans
to erect a missile defence shield.” A senior Russian “army general said
that Iskander missiles could be deployed in Belarus if US proposals to
place 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech
Republic go ahead.” Putin “also threatened to retrain Russia's nuclear
arsenal on targets within Europe.” However, “Washington claims that the
shield is aimed not at Russia but at states such as Iran which it
accuses of seeking to develop nuclear weapons that could one day strike
the West.”[4]

This is a patently absurd claim, as in May 2009, Russian and American
scientists released a report saying “that it would take Iran at least
another six to eight years to produce a missile with enough range to
reach Southern Europe and that only illicit foreign assistance or a
concerted and highly visible, decade-long effort might produce the
breakthroughs needed for a nuclear-tipped missile to threaten the United
States.”[5] Even in December of 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) released by all 16 US intelligence agencies reported that, “Iran
halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains
frozen.”[6]

Russia has concerns not only about missile interceptors in Poland, which
it claims are aimed at Russia, but is also concerned about “an advanced
missile-tracking radar that the Pentagon wants to place in the Czech
Republic.”[7] Further, in 2007, the Guardian reported that, “Russia is
preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to
build a new missile defence system in eastern Europe, according to
Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a cold
war-style arms race.” A Kremlin spokesman said of the Polish missile
defenses and the Czech radar system, that, “We were extremely concerned
and disappointed. We were never informed in advance about these plans.
It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to
the world's strategic stability.”[8]

In May of 2008, it was reported that, “President Dmitri A. Medvedev of
Russia and President Hu Jintao of China met ... to conclude a deal on
nuclear cooperation and together condemn American proposals for a
missile shield in Europe. Both countries called the plan a setback to
international trust that was likely to upset the balance of power.”[9]

In July of 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that it “will be
forced to make a military response if the U.S.-Czech missile defense
agreement is ratified,” and that, “we will be forced to react not with
diplomatic, but with military-technical methods.”[10] In August of 2008,
the US and Poland reached a deal “to place an American missile defense
base on Polish territory.” Russia responded by “saying that the move
would worsen relations with the United States.”[11] Russia further said
“the US had shown that Russia was the true target of the defensive
shield, as tension between the two powers continued to rise over the
conflict in Georgia.” The Deputy Head of Russia’s general staff “warned
that Poland was making itself a target for Russia's military.”[12]

It was further reported that, “General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any
new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his
forces targeting ‘the allies of countries having nuclear weapons’,” and
that, “Such targets are destroyed as a first priority.”[13]

In April of 2009, Obama said, “that the U.S. missile defense system in
the Czech Republic and Poland will go forward.”[14] In May of 2009,
Russia said that it “could deploy its latest Iskander missiles close to
Poland if plans to install U.S. Patriots on Polish soil go ahead.”[15]
In July of 2009, Russian President Medvedev said that, “Russia will
still deploy missiles near Poland if the US pushes ahead with a missile
shield in Eastern Europe.”[16]

Iran and the China-Russia Alliance

The Bush regime used hostile rhetoric against Iran, threatening possible
war against the country. However, Iran will not be in any way similar to
the military adventurism seen in Iraq. A war against Iran will bring
China and Russia to war with the west. Chinese and Russian investments
with Iran, both in terms of military cooperation as well as nuclear
proliferation and energy ties, have driven the interests of Iran
together with those of China and Russia.

In 2007, both Russia and China warned against any attack on Iran by the
west.[17] From 2004 onwards, China became Iran’s top oil export market,
and Iran is China’s third largest supplier of oil, following Angola and
Saudi Arabia. China and Iran signed a gas deal in 2008 worth 100 billion
dollars. Further, “Beijing is helping Tehran to build dams, shipyards
and many other projects. More than 100 Chinese state companies are
operating in Iran to develop ports and airports in the major Iranian
cities, mine-development projects and oil and gas infrastructures.”
Also, “China, Iran and Russia maintain identical foreign policy
positions regarding Taiwan and Chechnya,”[18] which only further
strengthens their alliance.

In August of 2008, a senior Iranian defense official warned that any
attack against Iran would trigger a world war.[19] In February of 2009,
Iran and Russia announced that, “Iran and Russia are to boost military
cooperation.”[20] Russia has also been selling arms and advanced weapons
systems to both Iran and Venezuela.[21] In 2008, OPEC warned against an
attack on Iran, saying that, “oil prices would see an ‘unlimited’
increase in the case of a military conflict involving Iran, because the
group's members would be unable to make up the lost production.”[22]

In 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was founded as a
mutual security organization between the nations of China, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Its main focus is on
Central Asian security matters, such as “terrorism, separatism and
extremism.” Nations with Observer status in the SCO are India, Mongolia,
Pakistan and Iran. The SCO also emphasizes economic ties between the
nations, and serves as a counter to American hegemony in Central Asia.[23]

In October of 2007, the SCO, headed by China, signed an agreement with
the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), headed by Russia, in
an effort to bolster and strengthen links in defense and security
between the two major nations.[24] The CSTO was formed in 2002 between
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. In
2007, it was suggested that Iran could join the CSTO.[25] In April of
2009, it was reported that the CSTO is building up its cooperation with
Iran, acting as a counterweight to NATO.[26] In February of 2009,
following a summit, the CSTO had “produced an agreement to set up a
joint rapid-reaction force intended to respond to the ‘broadest range of
threats and challenges’.”[27] The rapid-reaction force “will comprise
large military units from five countries - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan,” and is seen as a force to rival
NATO.[28]

In April of 2009, Russia and China “announced plans for an intensified
programme of military cooperation yesterday as part of a burgeoning
‘strategic partnership’,” and that, “As many as 25 joint manoeuvres will
be staged this year in a demonstration of strengthening ties between
Moscow and Beijing.” Further, “Russia and China staged their first joint
war games in 2005 after resolving outstanding border disputes between
them. However, Moscow views Beijing as a lucrative market for defence
exports and has sold billions of dollars of weaponry to China since the
collapse of the Soviet Union ended their Communist rivalry.” Important
to note is that, “Both states have a keen interest in keeping the United
States and Europe out of Central Asia as competition intensifies for
access to the region’s enormous oil and gas reserves.”[29]

In June of 2009, “China and Russia signed a series of new agreements to
broaden their collaborations in trade, investment and mining, including
the framework on $700 million loan between Export-Import Bank of China
and Russian Bank of Foreign Trade.” Of great importance, “Memorandums on
bilateral gas and coal cooperation are likely to lead the two countries'
energy links to cover all the main sectors, from coal, oil, electricity,
gas to nuclear power.” The leaders of both nations said that they “hoped
the two countries will also increase their joint projects in science and
technology, agriculture, telecommunications and border trade.”[30]

In April of 2009, China and Russia signed a major oil pipeline deal to
supply China with Russian oil.[31] In July of 2009, China and Russia
underwent a week-long war game exercise of land and air forces,
“designed to counter a hypothetical threat from Islamist extremists or
ethnic separatists that both countries insist look increasingly
realistic.” In particular, “both are driven by a growing sense of
urgency stemming from what they see as a deteriorating security picture
in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.”[32]

The Georgian War: Spreading Conflict in the Caucasus

After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, Georgia’s northern
province of South Ossetia declared independence but failed to be
internationally recognized. South Ossetia as well as Georgia’s other
largely autonomous province, Abkhazia, had traditionally been allied
with Russia. There had been long-standing tensions between South Ossetia
and Georgia and a shaky ceasefire.

On August 1, 2008, six people were killed in South Ossetia when fighting
broke out between Georgian and South Ossetian forces. Both sides blamed
each other for opening fire first, with Russian peacekeepers blaming
Georgia and the Georgians blaming Russian peacekeepers.[33]

On August 5, Russia announced that it would “defend its citizens living
in the conflict zone” if a conflict were to erupt in Georgia, and the
South Ossetian President said Georgia was “attempting to spark a
full-scale war.” Further, South Ossetian children were being evacuated
out of the conflict zone, an act that was “condemned” by Georgia, saying
that the separatists were “using their youngsters as political
propaganda.”[34]

On August 7, a ceasefire was announced between Georgia and South
Ossetia, with Russia acting as a mediator between the two. On the night
of August 7, five hours after the declared ceasefire, Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili began a military operation against the capital city
of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali.[35] The Georgian attack targeted
hospitals, the university and left the city without food, water,
electricity and gas.[36]

Georgian forces surrounded the city and their troops and tanks continued
to assault the civilian targets. On the 8th of August, Russia called for
an end to the military offensive. Reportedly, 2,000 civilians were
killed by this point in South Ossetia, so Russia sent troops into the
area. Russian Prime Minister Putin referred to Georgian actions as
“genocide” and Russia also reportedly bombed a Georgian town.
Immediately, the US called for “an end to the Russian bombings.” The
Georgian President called it an “unprovoked brutal Russian invasion.”
Much of Tskhinvali was left in ruins after the Georgian offensive, with
34,000 South Ossetian refugees in Russia.[37]

Georgia, which had 2,000 troops deployed in Iraq, announced on August
9th that they would be pulling 1,000 troops out of Iraq to be deployed
into South Ossetia, with the US providing the transportation for
Georgian troops to get back to Georgia.[38] However, the Russian advance
pushed the Georgian troops back, recapturing the city and damaging much
of Georgia’s military infrastructure. The Russian troops also entered
the other breakaway province of Abkhazia and even occupied the Georgian
city of Gori.

On August 12, the Russians announced an end to their military operations
in Georgia and on August 13th, the last remaining Georgian troops pulled
out of South Ossetia.

However, there is much more to this story than simply a conflict between
a small Central Asian nation and Russia. It is important to remember the
role played by American NGOs in putting the Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvili into power through the Rose Revolution in 2003 [See:
Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III]. The US then
developed closer ties with Georgia. Even before the Rose Revolution, in
2002, US military advisers were in Georgia in an effort to open up a
“new front” in the war on terror, with Americans there to “train the
Georgian army in how to counter militant activity.”[39] Also in 2002,
hundreds of US Green Berets and 200 Special Forces arrived in Georgia to
train Georgian forces “for anti-terrorism and counterinsurgency
operations.”[40] Russia warned against US involvement in Georgia, saying
that it could “complicate” the situation.[41]

US and Georgian troops even conducted war games and military exercises
together. In July of 2008, it was reported that 1,000 US troops in
Georgia began a military training exercise with Georgian troops called
“Immediate Response 2008.” The same report stated that “Georgia and the
Pentagon [cooperated] closely.” The training exercise came amidst
growing tensions between Russia and Georgia, while the US was
simultaneously supporting Georgia’s bid to become a NATO member.[42]

Further, 1,200 US servicemen and 800 Georgians were to train for three
weeks at a military base near the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.[43] The
exercise was being run in cooperation with NATO and was preceded by a
visit to Georgia by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, where she
met with the President and stated that, “the future of Georgia is in
NATO.”[44]

However, these exercises and increased military cooperation between the
US and Georgia did not go unnoticed by Russia, which simultaneously
began military exercises on the other side of the Caucasus mountains,
involving up to 8,000 Russian servicemen.[45] Clearly, Russia itself was
aware of the potential for a military conflict in the region.

When the conflict with Russia began, there were US military instructors
in Georgia,[46] and Russia’s envoy to NATO also accused NATO of
encouraging Georgia to take the offensive against South Ossetia.[47]

The US was not the only western nation to aid Georgia, as the unofficial
NATO member, Israel, also played a part in arming Georgia. The Georgian
tanks and artillery that captured the South Ossetian capital were aided
by Israeli military advisers. Further, for up to a year leading up to
the conflict, the Georgian President had commissioned upwards of 1,000
military advisers from private Israeli security firms to train the
Georgian armed forces, as well as offer instruction on military
intelligence and security. Georgia also purchased military equipment
from Israel.[48]

The War in Georgia was designed to escalate tensions between NATO and
Russia, using the region as a means to create a wider conflict. However,
Russia’s decision to end the combat operations quickly worked to its
benefit and had the effect of diminishing the international tensions.
The issue of NATO membership for Georgia is very important, because had
it been a NATO member, the Russian attack on Georgia would have been
viewed as an attack on all NATO members. The war in Afghanistan was
launched by NATO on the premises of ‘an attack against one is an attack
against all.’

It also was significant that there was a large pipeline deal in the
works, with Georgia sitting in a key strategic position. Georgia lies
between Russia and Turkey, between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea,
and above Iran and Iraq. The significance of Georgia as a strategic
outpost cannot be underestimated. This is true, particularly when it
comes to pipelines.

The Baku Tblisi Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline, the second largest pipeline in
the world, travels from Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, through
Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, to Ceyhan, a Mediterranean port city in
Turkey. This pipeline creates a route that bypasses both Iran and
Russia, to bring Caspian Basin oil resources “to the United States,
Israel and Western European markets.” The US company Bechtel, was the
main contractor for construction, procurement and engineering, while
British Petroleum (BP), is the leading shareholder in the project.[49]
Israel gets much of its oil via Turkey through the BTC pipeline route,
which likely played a large part in Israel’s support for Georgia in the
conflict,[50] as a continual standoff between the West and the East
(Russia/China) takes place for control of the world’s resources.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the
Trilateral Commission, and Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser who
played a key role in the creation of the Afghan Mujahideen, which became
known as Al-Qaeda, wrote an op-ed for Time Magazine at the outbreak of
the Russia-Georgia conflict. Brzezinski, being a Cold War kingpin of
geopolitical strategy, naturally blamed Russia for the conflict.
However, he also revealed the true nature of the conflict.

He started by blaming Russia’s “invasion of Georgia” on its “imperial
aims.” Brzezinski blamed much of this on the “intense nationalistic mood
that now permeates Russia’s political elite.” Brzezinski went on to
explain Georgia’s strategic significance; stating that, “an independent
Georgia is critical to the international flow of oil,” since the BTC
pipeline “provides the West access to the energy resources of central
Asia.” Brzezinski warned Russia of being “ostracized internationally,”
in particular its business elite, calling them “vulnerable” because
“Russia’s powerful oligarchs have hundreds of billions of dollars in
Western bank accounts,” which would be subject to a possible “freezing”
by the West in the event of a “Cold War-style standoff.”[51]
Brzezinski’s op-ed essentially amounted to geopolitical extortion.

Regime Change in Iran

There was, for many years, a split in the administration of George W.
Bush in regards to US policy towards Iran. On the one hand, there was
the hardliner neoconservative element, led by Dick Cheney, with Rumsfeld
in the Pentagon; who were long pushing for a military confrontation with
Iran. On the other hand, there was Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of
State, who was pushing for a more diplomatic, or “soft” approach to Iran.

In February of 2006, Condoleezza Rice introduced a new Iran strategy to
the Senate, “emphasizing the tools of so-called soft diplomacy. She
called for ramping up funding to assist pro-democracy groups, public
diplomacy initiatives, and cultural and education fellowships, in
addition to expanding U.S.-funded radio, television, and Internet and
satellite-based broadcasting, which are increasingly popular among
younger Iranians.” She added that, “we are going to work to support the
aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom in their country.” There
were three main facets to the program: “Expanding independent radio and
television”; “Funding pro-democracy groups,” which “would lift bans on
U.S. financing of Iran-based nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), trade
unions, human rights groups, and opposition candidates”; and “Boosting
cultural and education fellowships and exchanges,” which “would help pay
Iranian students and scholars to enroll in U.S. universities.”[52]

This marked a significant change in U.S. foreign policy with Iran, which
would have the effect of making Iran’s domestic situation “more
intense,” or as one expert put it, “this is the thing that can undo this
regime.” Another expert stated that if the strategy failed, “we will
have wasted the money, but worse than that, helped discredit legitimate
opposition groups as traitors who receive money from the enemy to
undermine Iran 's national interest.”[53]

In March of 2006, the Iraq Study Group was assembled as a group of high
level diplomats and strategic elites to reexamine US policy toward Iraq,
and more broadly, to Iran as well. It proposed a softer stance towards
Iran, and one of its members, Robert Gates, former CIA director, left
the Group in November of 2006 to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of
Defense. Cheney had fought to keep his ally in the Pentagon, but had
failed in not only that, but also in preventing Robert Gates from being
his replacement.[54]

In February of 2006, the Guardian reported that the Bush administration
received “a seven-fold increase in funding to mount the biggest ever
propaganda campaign against the Tehran government,” and quoted Secretary
Rice as saying, “we will work to support the aspirations of the Iranian
people for freedom and democracy in their country.” The “US is to
increase funds to Iranian non-governmental bodies that promote
democracy, human rights and trade unionism,” which started in 2005 for
the first time since 1980, and that, “the US would seek to help build
new dissident networks.”[55]

In April of 2006, the Financial Times reported that, “The US and UK are
working on a strategy to promote democratic change in Iran,” as
“Democracy promotion is a rubric to get the Europeans behind a more
robust policy without calling it regime change.”[56] Christian Science
Monitor reported that the goal of the strategy was “regime change from
within,” in the form of “a pro-democracy revolution.”[57]

In July of 2007, it was reported that the White House had “shifted back
in favour of military action,” at the insistence of Cheney.[58] Josh
Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, said in May of 2007,
that US strategy consisted of three options: the first was economic
sanctions, the second was regime change, and the third was military
action. Bolton elaborated that, “we've got to go with regime change by
bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the
circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's
safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if
all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the
use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force.”
Ultimately, the aim would be “to foment a popular revolution.”[59]

In September of 2007, it was reported that the Bush administration was
pushing the US on the warpath with Iran, as “Pentagon planners have
developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran.” It was even
reported that Secretary Rice was “prepared to settle her differences
with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.” It was
reported that Rice and Cheney were working together to present a more
unified front, finding a middle ground between Rice’s soft diplomacy,
and Cheney’s preference to use “bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons”
against Iran.[60]

That same year, in 2007, the United States launched covert operations
against Iran. ABC broke the story, reporting that, “The CIA has received
secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to
destabilize the Iranian government.” The President signed an order “that
puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated
campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's
currency and international financial transactions.” The approval of
these covert operations marked a temporary move away from pursuing overt
military action.[61]

As the Telegraph reported in May of 2007, “Bush has signed an official
document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation
campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic
rule of the mullahs.” As part of the plan, “the CIA [has] the right to
collect intelligence on home soil, an area that is usually the preserve
of the FBI, from the many Iranian exiles and emigrés within the US,” as
“Iranians in America have links with their families at home, and they
are a good two-way source of information.” Further, “The CIA will also
be allowed to supply communications equipment which would enable
opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass internet
censorship by the clerical regime.”[62]

“Soft” power became the favoured policy for promoting regime change in
Iran. David Denehy, a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, was “charged with overseeing the distribution of
millions of dollars to advance the cause of a more democratic Iran.” He
was responsible for disbursing the $75 million that Ms. Rice asked the
Senate for in February of 2006. The appropriations included “$36.1
million into existing television and radio programs beaming into Iran,”
and “$10 million would pay for public diplomacy and exchange programs,
including helping Iranians who hope to study in America,” and “$20
million would support the efforts of civil-society groups — media, legal
and human rights nongovernmental organizations — both outside and inside
Iran.” The administration was requesting an additional $75 million for
2008.[63]

In 2008, award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh revealed in the New
Yorker that in late 2007, Congress approved “a request from President
Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran,
according to current and former military, intelligence, and
congressional sources.” While the Cheney hard-liners in the Bush
administration were long pushing for a direct military confrontation
with Iran, the military had to be reigned in from being controlled by
the neo-conservatives. Robert Gates, a former CIA director, had replaced
Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, and while still saber rattling
Iran, had to take a more strategic position, as many military leaders in
the Pentagon felt “that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the
nuclear-proliferation issue.”[64]

The covert operations that were approved ran at a cost of approximately
$400 million dollars, and “are designed to destabilize the country’s
religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the
minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident
organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s
suspected nuclear-weapons program.” The operations were to be expanded
under both the CIA and JSOC (the Joint Special Operations Command). The
focus was “on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to
undermine the government through regime change,” of which a major facet
was “working with opposition groups and passing money.” Hersh elaborated:

Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran,
and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing money” (to
use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a covert
setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and whom it
benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official said,
“We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and our
communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the argument that
the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many times have we
tried this without asking the right questions? Is the risk worth it?”
One possible consequence of these operations would be a violent Iranian
crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which could give the Bush
Administration a reason to intervene.[65]

Included in the strategy was to use ethnic tensions to undermine the
government; however, this strategy is flawed. Unlike Pakistan, Lebanon,
and Iraq, Iran is a much older country, “like France and Germany—and its
citizens are just as nationalistic. The U.S. is overestimating ethnic
tension in Iran.”[66] This turned out to be an important point in
regards to the elections in the summer of 2009.

Flashback to 1953

To understand the nature of American and British “democracy promotion”
in Iran, it is important to examine their historical practices regarding
“democracy” in Iran. Specifically, the events of 1953 present a very
important picture, in which the United States orchestrated its first
foreign coup, with guidance and direction from the British, who had
extensive oil interests in Iran. The first democratically elected
government of Mohommad Mossadeq in 1951 announced the nationalization of
the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later to be re-named British Petroleum),
which had an exclusive monopoly on Iranian oil. This naturally angered
the British, who, in 1952, convinced the CIA to help in a plot to
overthrow Iran’s government.

The idea to topple the Iranian government was born in Britain, but it
didn’t take much to convince the CIA to launch a joint operation with
the SIS. Government documents were made public which revealed that CIA
“officers orchestrating the Iran coup worked directly with royalist
Iranian military officers, handpicked the prime minister's replacement,
sent a stream of envoys to bolster the shah's courage, directed a
campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist
Party, and planted articles and editorial cartoons in newspapers.” The
strategy was aimed at supporting an Iranian General and the Shah through
CIA assets and financing, which would overthrow Mossadeq, “particularly
if this combination should be able to get the largest mobs in the
streets.”[67]

The Shah was to play a pivotal role, as he was “to stand fast as the
C.I.A. stirred up popular unrest and then, as the country lurched toward
chaos, to issue royal decrees dismissing Dr. Mossadegh and appointing
General Zahedi prime minister.” CIA operatives stoked pressure by
pretending to be Iranian Communists, threatening Muslim leaders with
“savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh,” in an effort to stir
anti-Communist and anti-Mossadeq sentiments in the religious community.
The CIA even bombed the house of a prominent Muslim. Further, the CIA
was advancing a major propaganda campaign, as a major newspaper owner
was paid $45,000 to support the efforts. The CIA, once the coup was
underway, used American media as propaganda, in an attempt to legitimize
the coup plotters, as the CIA sent The Associated Press a news release
saying that, “unofficial reports are current to the effect that leaders
of the plot are armed with two decrees of the shah, one dismissing
Mossadegh and the other appointing General Zahedi to replace him.” The
CIA also disseminated this propaganda through Iranian media.

Following the beginning of the coup, which began on August 15, Mossadeq
suspended the Parliament, which ultimately played “into the C.I.A.'s
hands.” After having several plotters arrested, he let his guard down.
Then the American Embassy planned a counterattack for August 19,
specifically using religious forces. At this time, the Communist Party
blamed “Anglo-American intrigue” for the coup. However, just as the CIA
thought it was a failure, Iranian papers began publishing en masse the
Shah’s decrees, and suddenly large pro-Shah crowds were building in the
streets. An Iranian journalist who was an important CIA agent, “led a
crowd toward Parliament, inciting people to set fire to the offices of a
newspaper owned by Dr. Mossadegh's foreign minister. Another Iranian
C.I.A. agent led a crowd to sack the offices of pro-Tudeh papers.”

Then coup supporters in the military began to enter the streets, and
soon “the crowds began to receive direct leadership from a few officers
involved in the plot and some who had switched sides. Within an hour the
central telegraph office fell, and telegrams were sent to the provinces
urging a pro-shah uprising. After a brief shootout, police headquarters
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs fell as well.” Interestingly,
according to the declassified documents, the CIA “hoped to plant
articles in American newspapers saying Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi's
return resulted from a homegrown revolt against a Communist-leaning
government,” but that ultimately, “its operatives had only limited
success in manipulating American reporters.” The CIA planted stories in
US media, such as one instance where the State Department planted a CIA
study in Newsweek.

One of the key lessons the CIA learned in this operation, was that it
“exposed the agency's shortcomings in manipulating the American press.”
The CIA even manipulated a reporter with the New York Times to
disseminate propaganda. While Soviet media was proclaiming the US
responsible for the coup, American mentions of this in the media
dismissed these accusations outright, and never “examined such charges
seriously.”[68]

By the end of Operation Ajax, as the CIA coup was codenamed, “some 300
people had died in firefights in the streets of Tehran,” largely due to
the CIA “provoking street violence.” The coup resulted in “more than two
decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and
arms.”[69]

The West Sponsors Terrorists in Iran

In 2005, Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, reported that, “the
Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by
Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services,” was now working for the
CIA in terror bombings inside Iran.[70] In February of 2007, the
Telegraph reported that, “America is secretly funding militant ethnic
separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic
regime to give up its nuclear programme.”

The CIA operations “involve dealing with movements that resort to
terrorist methods,” and the article noted that, “there has been a wave
of unrest in ethnic minority border areas of Iran, with bombing and
assassination campaigns against soldiers and government officials,” and
interestingly, the CIA operations are focused on “helping opposition
militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's
border regions.” A former State Department counter-terrorism agent was
quoted as saying, “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US
efforts to supply and train Iran's ethnic minorities to destabilise the
Iranian regime.”[71]

ABC News reported in April of 2007 that, “A Pakistani tribal militant
group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has
been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.”
The group, named Jundullah, operates out of the Baluchistan province in
Pakistan, on the boarder of Iran, and “has taken responsibility for the
deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and
officials.”[72]

In 2008, Pakistan’s former Army Chief said that, “the US is supporting
the outlawed Jundullah group to destabilize Iran,” and that, “the US is
providing training facilities to Jundullah fighters--located in eastern
areas of Iran--to create unrest in the area and affect the cordial ties
between Iran and its neighbor Pakistan.”[73]

The 2009 Election Protests

The events of 1953 presented a blueprint for the 2009 Iranian election
protests, an attempted “soft revolution” in Iran, also drawing from the
“colour revolutions” in the post-Soviet states of Eastern Europe [See:
Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III]. It is the
thesis of this author that the 2009 election riots in Iran were a covert
US (and British) plot designed to orchestrate regime change in Iran. The
aim was to put in place a US-friendly leader, and thus, exert political,
economic and strategic hegemony over Iran. Following the stratagem of
US-funded “colour revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc, but with heavy
CIA influence, drawing parallels with the 1953 coup; the plot was
ultimately unsuccessful.

While the 1953 coup revealed the failure of the CIA to greatly influence
and manipulate US media, the 2009 riots revealed a great success in
American media manipulation; however, ironically, it was the focus on
this triumphant success that may have impeded the ultimate success of
the plot. American popular perception of an illegitimate election and
political oppression was enough to support regime change, but not to
enact regime change. So, in a bitter irony for the US, the failure of
the 1953 coup, became the success of the 2009 plot; while the success of
the 1953 coup, became the failure of the 2009 plot. It just so happens
that the success of the 1953 coup . . . was that it worked.

In November of 2008, Iranian media reported that, “the White House is
making strenuous efforts to orchestrate a "Velvet Revolution" in Iran.”
The former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations said that, “that
Washington is conspiring to foment discord among Iranians in order to
topple the Tehran government.”[74]

Iranian media reported in April of 2009, two months prior to the
Presidential elections, that Iran's Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had
“uncovered a plot for a ‘soft overthrow’ of the country's government,”
and “accused the Netherlands of conspiring to foment a velvet revolution
in the country by supporting the opposition through the media and
different Internet sites.” In 2005, the Dutch parliament funded a 15
million euro “media polarization campaign” inside Iran, which was
“Coupled with British assistance and secret US funding.”[75]

In the lead-up to the elections, there were increasing attacks within
Iran. Two weeks before the election, on May 28, 2009, in southeastern
Iran, a Shi’a mosque bombing resulted in the deaths of 20 people. An
Iranian official accused the United States of involvement in arming the
terrorists, who committed the act in a Sunni area of Iran, a religious
minority within the country. Jundullah, the terrorist organization armed
and funded by the US through the CIA, claimed responsibility for the
bombing.[76] The following day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
election campaign office was attacked by gunmen in the same city as the
bombing, resulting in several injuries.[77] These attacks, aimed at
stirring up religious tensions, are reminiscent of the attacks carried
out by the CIA in Iran in the 1953 coup.

The day before the election, on June 11, 2009, it was reported that the
National Endowment for Democracy, the main institution behind the
“colour revolutions” in Eastern Europe (covered in Part 2 of this
series), had spent a lot of money that made it into the hands of
pro-Mousavi groups inside Iran, as Mousavi was the Western favoured
candidate in the Iranian elections. It was even reported that there was
talk of a “green revolution” in Iran, as the Mousavi campaign was full
of green scarves and banners at the rallies.[78]

On June 10, 2009, two days before the election, a New York Times blog
reported that there was concern among many Ahmadinejad supporters in
Iran that they fear “that what they are witnessing is a local version of
the Orange Revolution, which swept an opposition government into power
in Ukraine.”[79]

On June 12, 2009, the Iranian election took place. Immediately, the
propaganda machine went into effect and the plan for a colour revolution
in Iran was underway. Iran’s state run news agency reported that
Ahmadinejad had won in a landslide victory of 69%. Immediately, his main
rival and the American-favoured candidate, Moussavi, claimed that he had
won and that there were voting “irregularities,” and was quoted as
saying, “I am the absolute winner of the election by a very large
margin.”[80]

Immediately, Western governments denounced the election as a fraud, and
protests began in the streets of Tehran, where young people clad in the
green of the Mousavi campaign declared “Death to the Dictator” referring
to Ahmadinejad. Mousavi encouraged the protests to continue, and in the
second day of protests, young people “broke the windows of city buses on
several streets in central Tehran. They burned banks, rubbish bins and
piles of tyres used as flaming barricades. Riot police hit some of the
protesters with batons while dozens of others holding shields and
motorcycles stood guard nearby.” Western governments then openly
declared their solidarity with the protests and denounced the Iranian
government for repressing them.[81]

Despite all the claims of vote fraud and irregularities, those taking
this position offered no actual evidence to support it. As Politico
reported on June 15, the people proclaiming fraud “ignore the fact that
Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is
essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count
of the 2005 presidential election.” These people also conveniently
ignore many popular perceptions within Iran, such as the fact that most
Iranians saw Ahmadinejad as having won the televised debates and that he
can also be viewed as a populist campaigner. Ahmadinejad has the support
of a large amount of Iranians, “including the religiously pious,
lower-income groups, civil servants and pensioners.”[82]

Some “evidence” for fraud was highly circumstantial, in that it claimed
that because Mousavi comes from an Azeri background, “he was guaranteed
to win Iran’s Azeri-majority provinces,” and so, when Ahmadinejad won in
these provinces, “fraud is the only possible explanation.” However,
Ahmadinejad also speaks Azeri quite fluently, had formerly served as an
official in two Azeri areas, and the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah
Khameini, is also Azeri.[83]

This also ignores the class based voting of Iranians. While the West
tends to portray the Middle East and Africa through an Orientalist lens,
viewing them as “the Other,” and often portraying the people of these
regions as backwards or barbaric, reality is a far cry from Western
perception. People in the Middle East, including in Iran, vote with
concerns about the economy and social conditions in mind just as much as
voters in the west do. Voting in the Middle East is not simply based
upon religious or ethnic differences, there is more to consider, and any
analysis that forgets this is flawed. Even the Financial Times was
quoted as saying, “Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a
relaxed dress code or mixed recreation,” and that, “Politics in Iran is
a lot more about class war than religion.”[84]

As James Petras wrote, “The only group, which consistently favored
Mousavi, was the university students and graduates, business owners and
the upper middle class.”[85] These also happened to be the highly
Westernized Iranians. The Iranians protesting in the “green revolution”
were holding signs written in English, and were giving interviews to
western media all in English. Many were western educated and raised. The
Iranian diaspora in the west was also largely supportive of the “green
revolution,” as they are the sons and daughters of those who had
emigrated out of Iran following the 1979 Iranian Revolution. They are
the children of the exiled Iranian capitalist class, and do not
represent a fair assessment of the internal Iranian population. After
all, the poor and the masses do not have the means to emigrate to the
west. Naturally, many westernized youth in Iran have legitimate concerns
and social issues with the present way of governance within Iran;
however, the majority of Iranians are more concerned with their daily
meals than Islamic dress codes.

As Petras further pointed out, “The ‘youth vote’, which the Western
media praised as ‘pro-reformist’, was a clear minority of less than 30%
but came from a highly privileged, vocal and largely English speaking
group with a monopoly on the Western media.”[86] Even the Washington
Post reported on June 15, about a major Western poll conducted in Iran
three weeks prior to the election, in which it “showed Ahmadinejad
leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent
margin of victory,” and the “scientific sampling from across all 30 of
Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.”

The Washington Post article further pointed out that, “Much commentary
has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in
this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even
have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the
strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.” Further, the
only demographic where Mousavi was “leading or competitive with
Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the
highest-income Iranians.” The article ended by saying that, “The fact
may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the
Iranian people wanted.”[87]

The Internet played a very large role in the international perception of
the Iranian elections, as social networking sites like Twitter and
Facebook were used to advance the aims of the “green revolution,” often
giving it the name the “Twitter Revolution.” Remember that in 2007, “a
CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda,
disinformation and manipulation,” was put into effect, which were
“intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of
the mullahs.” As part of this, “The CIA will also be allowed to supply
communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to
work together and bypass internet censorship by the clerical regime.”[88]

In the midst of the protests, the Iranian government cracked down on
dissent, banning foreign reporters and blocking websites. As the
Washington Times reported, “Well-developed Twitter lists showed a
constant stream of situation updates and links to photos and videos, all
of which painted a portrait of the developing turmoil. Digital photos
and videos proliferated and were picked up and reported in countless
external sources safe from the regime's Net crackdown.”[89] Naturally,
all of this information came from the upper class Western students, who
had access to this technology, which they were using in English.

On June 15, “a 27-year-old State Department official, Jared Cohen,
e-mailed the social-networking site Twitter with an unusual request:
delay scheduled maintenance of its global network, which would have cut
off service while Iranians were using Twitter to swap information and
inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran.”
Further, the New York Times reported that, “Mr. Cohen, a Stanford
University graduate who is the youngest member of the State Department’s
policy planning staff, has been working with Twitter, YouTube, Facebook
and other services to harness their reach for diplomatic initiatives.”[90]

It turned out only a small number of people in Iran actually used
Twitter for organizational purposes; however, “Twitter did prove to be a
crucial tool in the cat-and-mouse game between the opposition and the
government over enlisting world opinion.” Twitter also took part in
spreading disinformation during the protests, as the New York Times
pointed out that, “some of the biggest errors on Twitter that were
quickly repeated and amplified by bloggers: that three million protested
in Tehran last weekend (more like a few hundred thousand); that the
opposition candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi was under house arrest (he was
being watched); that the president of the election monitoring committee
declared the election invalid last Saturday (not so).”[91]

On the 28th of June, the Iranian Intelligence Minister blamed western
powers, specifically the United States and Britain, for the
post-election protests and violence. Iran even arrested British embassy
staff in Tehran.[92] On July 3, the head of Iran's Guardians Council
said that, “British embassy staff would be put on trial for inciting
violent protests.” Iran had arrested nine “British embassy employees it
accused of playing a role in organising pro-democracy demonstrations,”
but had released seven of them by July. However, one Embassy staff
member had been accused of “a significant role” in the election riots.[93]

Amidst all the British denials of any involvement, the Telegraph
revealed in late July that two exiles, “Azadeh Assadi and Vahid Saderigh
have been providing crucial support to opposition leaders in Tehran from
their homes in London,” who “take their cue from Iran's Green Movement
which has been the rallying point for an unprecedented challenge to the
leadership of the Islamic Republic.” They further organized the protests
at the Iranian Embassy in London, which lasted for 31 days, longer than
anywhere else.[94]

Hossein Rassam, head of the security and political division of the
British Embassy in Tehran, was arrested under suspicions that he played
a key role in the protests “in providing guidance to diplomats and
reporters of the British media.” Further, an Iranian-American scholar
was arrested. In 2007, Iran arrested “Haleh Esfandiari, head of the
Wilson Center's Middle East program, and Kian Tajbakhsh, with links to
the Soros institute, on suspicions of endangering the country's national
security.” They were released after three months detention.[95]

Of great interest were the statements made my former high-level American
strategic kingpins of the foreign policy establishment in the wake of
the riots: among them, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent
Scowcroft. Former US National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, in an
interview with Al-Jazeera shortly after the start of the protests, when
asked if the US had intelligence agents on the ground in Iran, replied,
without hesitation, “Of course we do.” The interviewer asked if they
would help the protesters, to which Scowcroft replied, “They might be,
who knows. But that’s a far cry from helping protesters against the
combined might of the Revolutionary Guard, the militias, and so on, and
the police, who are so far, completely unified.” He explained that he
feels the “movement” for change is there in Iran, and that, “It’s going
to change Iran, I think that is almost inevitable.”[96]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser in the Jimmy
Carter administration, co-founder with David Rockefeller of the
Trilateral Commission, and arch-hawk geopolitical strategist, was
interviewed on CNN shortly after the protests began. When asked how the
situation could be worked out to resemble Eastern Europe, as in,
successful colour revolutions putting western puppets in power,
Brzezinski responded, “Well, I think it will not work out the way
Eastern Europe worked out, and hopefully it will not end the way
Tiananmen Square ended. Eastern Europe became intensely pro-Western,
pro-American, and so forth.” Further, he explained, “If there is a
change of regime in Iran, there is a greater chance of accommodation,
and I think that is to be fervently wished for. But that requires
patience, intelligent manipulation, moral support, but no political
interference.”[97]

Henry Kissinger, former National Security Adviser and Secretary of
State; was interviewed by BBC at the outbreak of the riots. He stated
that, “Now if it turns out that it is not possible for a government to
emerge in Iran that can deal with itself as a nation rather than as a
cause, then we have a different situation. Then we may conclude that we
must work for regime change in Iran from the outside.”[98]

Clearly, there were extensive Western interests and involvement behind
the Iranian “democracy” movement that resulted in the protests following
the election. However, the ultimate goal of the attempted “colour
revolution” failed, as it did not succeed in achieving regime change.
Brzezinski’s strategy of “intelligent manipulation” ultimately failed,
and so, as Henry Kissinger stated, “we may conclude that we must work
for regime change in Iran from the outside.”

Latin America Is Not to Be Left Out: The Coup in Honduras

It is important to take a look at recent events in Latin America in an
imperial context to understand how wide and vast American and NATO
imperial strategy is. While the world’s eyes and media were fixated on
events in Iran, another event was taking place in Latin America, which
was conveniently ignored by international media.

On June 28, 2009, the Honduran military kidnapped the President of
Honduras and flew him into exile. The official line was that the coup
was prompted when Manuel Zelaya, the President of Honduras, was
attempting to schedule a poll on holding a referendum about rewriting
the constitution. The Supreme Court secretly issued an arrest warrant
for Zelaya on June 26, “charging him with treason and abuse of
power.”[99] The military entered his house two days later, and put him
on a military plane to Costa Rica, and the same day, the Honduran
Congress voted to remove Zelaya and replace him with the Speaker of
Congress Roberto Micheletti.

Zelaya happened to be a close ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez,
as well as Bolivian President Evo Morales; who represent the populist
leaders of the new move to the left in Latin America, and pose a strong
opposition force to the hegemony of US and Western interests in the
region. Hugo Chavez alleged that the coup had the hands of the United
States in it, and that the upper class in Honduras helped and “have
turned Honduras into a 'banana republic', into a political, military and
terror base for the North American empire.”[100]

The New York Times reported that the Obama administration was
“surprised” by the coup, “But they also said that they had been working
for several weeks to try to head off a political crisis in Honduras as
the confrontation between Mr. Zelaya and the military over his efforts
to lift presidential term limits escalated.” Further, “The United States
has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps train
Honduran military forces.” It was further reported that Secretary of
State Hilary Clinton visited Zelaya on June 2, and that the United
States thought Zelaya’s plans for reforming the Constitution was a “bad
idea.” The US Ambassador to Honduras had held discussions with military
officials where “There was talk of how they might remove the president
from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do
that.”[101]

As it turned out, the General in the Honduran Army who overthrew Zelaya
“is a two-time graduate of the U.S. Army School of the Americas, an
institution that has trained hundreds of coup leaders and human rights
abusers in Latin America.” Past graduates have included Argentine Gen.
Leopoldo Galtieri, Guatemalan dictator Gen. Efrain Rios Montt,
“Panamanian dictators Gen. Omar Torrijos, who overthrew a civilian
government in a 1968 coup, and Gen. Manuel Noriega, a five-time SOA
graduate, who ruled the country and dealt in drugs while on the CIA
payroll,” Ecuadoran dictator Gen. Guillermo Rodriguez, Bolivian
dictators Gen. Hugo Banzer Suarez and Gen. Guido Vildoso Calderon, and
Peruvian strongman Gen. Juan Velasco Alvarado.[102]

As was reported the following day of the coup, over the previous ten
years, “the United States has delivered $18.41 million in weapons and
defense articles to Honduras through the foreign military sales
program,” with Foreign Military Financing totaling $7.3 million between
2003 and today, and “International Military Education and Training funds
in that same period came to $14.82 million.”[103]

The Washington Post reported, two days following the coup, that when
Clinton was asked if it was a US priority to see Zelaya reinstated, she
responded, “We haven't laid out any demands that we're insisting on,
because we're working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives.”
Zelaya had fired Gen. Romeo Vasquez prior to the coup, and Air Force
commander, Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, along with many other military
leaders resigned. Both Vasquez and Suazo were trained at the School of
the Americas.[104]

An article in the Guardian published a few days after the coup stated
that, as countries around the world condemned the coup and called for
the reinstatement of Zelaya, “Washington's ambivalence has begun to
raise suspicions about what the US government is really trying to
accomplish in this situation.” One possibility for this is that “the
Obama administration may want to extract concessions from Zelaya as part
of a deal for his return to office.” Following the coup, oppression in
Honduras was rampant: “political repression, the closing of TV and radio
stations, the detention of journalists, detention and physical abuse of
diplomats and what the Committee to Protect Journalists has called a
"media blackout" have yet to draw a serious rebuke from Washington.” As
the author astutely stated:

The battle between Zelaya and his opponents pits a reform president who
is supported by labour unions and social organisations against a
mafia-like, drug-ridden, corrupt political elite who is accustomed to
choosing not only the supreme court and the Congress, but also the
president. It is a recurrent story in Latin America, and the US has
almost always sided with the elites.[105]

This harks back to 2002, when the United States had its hands involved
in the attempted coup in Venezuela to oust President Hugo Chavez, which
ultimately failed. In the months leading up to the attempted coup in
April 2002, US officials held a series of meetings with “Venezuelan
military officers and opposition activists.” Further, “a few weeks
before the coup attempt, administration officials met Pedro Carmona, the
business leader who took over the interim government after President
Hugo Chavez was arrested.”

The Pentagon even “confirmed that the Venezuelan army's chief of staff,
General Lucas Romero Rincon, visited the Pentagon in December and met
the assistant secretary of defence for western hemispheric affairs.”
Further, when “Mr Carmona and other opposition leaders came to the US
they met Otto Reich, the assistant secretary of state for western
hemisphere affairs.” Otto Reich was a veteran of the Reagan-era “dirty
tricks” in Latin America, such as the contra operations, which involved
the US funding drug-running terrorists and death squads, and Reich “was
the head of the office of public diplomacy in the state department,
which was later found to have been involved in covert pro-contra
propaganda.”[106]

The Observer reported that the coup attempt in 2002 “was closely tied to
senior officials in the US government.” Among the officials involved,
“Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a
conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra
affair.” There was of course Otto Reich, who met with all the coup
leaders in the months preceding the coup. Finally, there was John
Negroponte, who was in 2002 “ambassador to the United Nations. He was
Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained
death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists.
A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might
be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.”[107]

Two weeks following the coup in Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, the man
who replaced Zelaya following the coup, showed up at the house of
President Óscar Arias of Costa Rica, who was to mediate between the
“interim government” and Zelaya. Micheletti however, was accompanied
with an interesting cast of characters. He arrived with six advisers,
among them, “an American public relations specialist who has done work
for former President Bill Clinton and the American’s interpreter, and an
official close to the talks said the team rarely made a move without
consulting him.” International pressure for US sanctions on Honduras was
building, however:

Mr. Micheletti has embarked on a public relations offensive, with his
supporters hiring high-profile lawyers with strong Washington
connections to lobby against such sanctions. One powerful Latin American
business council hired Lanny J. Davis, who has served as President
Clinton’s personal lawyer and who campaigned for Mrs. Clinton for president.

[. . . ] Mr. Micheletti brought the adviser from another firm with
Clinton ties to the talks in Costa Rica. The adviser, Bennett Ratcliff
of San Diego, refused to give details about his role at the talks.

“Every proposal that Micheletti’s group presented was written or
approved by the American,” said another official close to the talks,
referring to Mr. Ratcliff.[108]

Clearly, whatever the end result, which has yet to be determined, the
hand of the United States can be seen in the Honduran coup. The bias and
ultimately the failure of the international media became quite evident
as a result of the coup. While the global media, particularly the
western corporate media, were devoting non-stop coverage to the Iranian
elections, proclaiming fraud, while offering no evidence; a military
coup ousting a democratically elected president and installing an
oppressive dictatorship which immediately began its heavy handed
repression received scant attention. The western media attacked an
actual democratic process in action, while ignoring a military assault
against democracy. Which story receives more coverage is determined by
the interests involved: in Iran, the West wanted a new government, so
the media pushed for one; in Honduras, the US wanted a new government,
so the media turned a blind eye while they got one through
non-democratic means.

The Afghanistan-Pakistan War Theatre

Within days of getting into office, President Obama authorized a missile
strike in Pakistan, which killed several civilians. Obama continued with
this strategy, after Bush, in July of 2008, “authorized the C.I.A. and
the Joint Special Operations Command to make ground incursions into
Pakistan.”[109] This was to set the pace for US strategy in the region,
particularly in relation to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In late March, Obama announced his plan for a new Afghanistan and
Pakistan strategy, which are to be a combined strategy. As part of the
strategy, known as the AfPak strategy, “More U.S. troops, civilian
officials and money will be needed,” and “Obama pledged to tighten U.S.
focus on Pakistan.” Further, Obama announced in late March that, “he
would send 4,000 U.S. troops -- beyond the additional 17,000 he
authorized” in February, “to work as trainers and advisers to the Afghan
army, and hundreds more civilian officials and diplomats to help improve
governance and the country's economy,” bringing the total number of US
troops up to 60,000.[110]

In May, a major event took place in military circles, as one of the few
times in over 50 years an American wartime general was fired in the
field. In May of 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the top
general in Afghanistan saying that what was needed was “fresh thinking”
and “fresh eyes” on Afghanistan. Gates “recommended that President Obama
replace McKiernan with a veteran Special Operations commander, Lt. Gen.
Stanley A. McChrystal.” As the Washington Post reported, McKiernan, the
general whom Gates fired, “was viewed as somewhat cautious and
conventionally minded.”[111] Could it be that McKiernan did not see the
AfPak strategy as a viable option; that it went against “caution”?

His replacement, General McChrystal, was “the director of the Pentagon's
Joint Staff. From 2006 to August 2008, he was the forward commander of
the U.S. military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command,
responsible for capturing or killing high-level leaders of the Sunni
insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.”[112] One expert summed up the new
General as such: “McChrystal kills people.” One senior military official
at the Pentagon asked; “what message are we sending when our
high-value-target hunter is sent to lead in Afghanistan?”[113]

However, there is another twist to this story. As Pulitzer Prize winning
journalist, Seymour Hersh revealed, Cheney created a special unit called
the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which was to carry out
high-level assassinations. This unit was kept a secret for many years,
and Hersh referred to it as an “Executive assassination ring.” Hersh
reported that they carried out many assassinations, “not just in Iraq
and Afghanistan, it's in a lot of other countries, in the Middle East
and in South Asia and North Africa and even central America.” The new
General of the AfPak war theatre, Stanley McChrystal, used to run
Cheney’s assassination squad.[114]

At the end of November 2009, Obama announced a surge of an additional
30,000 troops to Afghanistan, “bringing the total American force to
about 100,000.”[115] Further, in early December, it was reported that
Obama “authorized an expansion of the C.I.A.’s drone program in
Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, officials said this week, to parallel
the president’s decision, announced Tuesday, to send 30,000 more troops
to Afghanistan.”[116]

Clearly, the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy will only further inflame the
region in conflict and turmoil. Expanding the Afghan war into Pakistan
is akin to playing with matches around a stick of dynamite. Perhaps this
was the clarity of the previous general, McKiernan, in seeing this
strategic insanity, and thus, the reason for his removal. The
destabilization of this region threatens all of the neighboring
countries, including India, China, Russia, Turkey and Iran. The
possibility of creating a much wider war in the region, and even between
the great powers, is ever increasing.

Africa and AFRICOM

During the Cold War, Africa was an imperial battleground between the
USSR and the US-NATO powers, with the ultimate goal being the control
over strategic resource-rich areas. Since the collapse of the Soviet
Union, Russia’s influence in Africa largely dissipated, and with that,
came the neo-imperial struggle among the western powers for control over
key strategic points. Now, the great battle in Africa is between the
NATO powers, primarily the United States, and China, which has had
exponential growth and influence on the continent.

The 1990s saw the Rwandan genocide as a key event in Africa, which was,
in actuality, a struggle between France and the United States over the
key strategic location of Rwanda. The World Bank and IMF laid the
groundwork for conflict, creating the economic conditions that
exacerbated colonial-era ethnic tensions. Meanwhile, the United States,
through its proxy state of Uganda, funded military operations and
trained the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which conducted military
operations from Uganda into Rwanda. The Civil War waged from 1990-1993,
with the US funding all sides of the conflict. In 1994, the RPF shot
down the plane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, which
sparked the genocide. Following the genocide, the US-trained puppet,
Paul Kagame, became President of Rwanda.[117]

Following these events, the US had two protectorates in Central Africa,
Uganda and Rwanda, both of which bordered the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC). This was the ultimate prize in the area. From both Rwanda
and Uganda, military operations were funded and paramilitary forces were
trained by the United States to venture into the DRC, which erupted in
coups and Civil War. However, western, primarily American and Canadian
corporations were plundering the resource-rich Congo, while millions of
Congolese civilians died.[118]

In April of 2001, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney held a hearing on
Western involvement in the plunder of Africa, in which she stated, “at
the heart of Africa’s suffering is the West’s, and most notably the
United States’, desire to access Africa’s diamonds, oil, natural gas,
and other precious resources . . . the West, and most notably the United
States, has set in motion a policy of oppression, destabilization and
tempered, not by moral principle, but by a ruthless desire to enrich
itself on Africa’s fabulous wealth.”[119]

In the New World Order, Africa has not lost its significance as a
geopolitical prize for the great powers. While the Middle East, save
Iran, is largely under the influence of the United States and its NATO
allies, Africa is the main battleground between the US and China.
Imperialism in Africa goes under many names: the “War on Terror”,
military assistance, economic aid, and “humanitarian intervention” to
name a few.

U.S. Strategy in Africa

In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the main
policy-planning group of the US elite, published a Task Force Report on
US strategy in Africa called, More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic
U.S. Approach Toward Africa. In the report, it was stated that:

Africa is becoming more important because of its growing role in
supplying the world with oil, gas, and non-fuel minerals. Now supplying
the United States with 15 percent of oil imports, Africa’s production
may double in the next decade, and its capacity for natural gas exports
will grow even more. In the next decade, Africa could be supplying the
United States with as much energy as the Middle East.[120]

The report stated that, “The United States is facing intense competition
for energy and other natural resources in Africa,” identifying India and
primarily China as its main competitors “in the search for these
resources and for both economic and political influence on the
continent.”[121] In particular, “China presents a particularly important
challenge to U.S. interests.”[122]

Further, “To compete more effectively with China, the United States must
provide more encouragement and support to well-performing African
states, develop innovative means for U.S. companies to compete, give
high-level attention to Africa, and engage China on those practices that
conflict with U.S. interests.”[123]

In analyzing the threat China poses to the US in Africa, the report
hypocritically and misleadingly states that one of its main concerns is
that China uses “its seat on the UN Security Council to protect some of
Africa’s most egregious regimes from international sanction, in
particular Sudan and Zimbabwe.”[124] This conveniently ignores the
United States doing the same thing in regards to Israel, as well as its
tacit, overt and covert support for brutal regimes across the world, not
simply in Africa.

The report explained that much of China’s growing influence is due to
its “soft loans,” meaning that Chinese loans to African countries do not
come attached with “conditions” as in World Bank and IMF loans, which
make them much more attractive to African countries. China is also
heavily invested in the oil of Sudan, specifically in Darfur, which the
West does not have access to.

In analyzing how the War on Terror had been brought to Africa, the
report stated:

Post-9/11, the U.S. counterterror approach to Africa has been led by the
U.S. military: CENTCOM in the Horn; EUCOM in West, Central, and southern
Africa; and the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). More quietly,
U.S. intelligence cooperation with key states has expanded in parallel
with the enlargement of the U.S. military’s role.[125]

As the Guardian reported in June of 2005, “A new ‘scramble for Africa’
is taking place among the world's big powers, who are tapping into the
continent for its oil and diamonds.” A key facet of this is that
“corporations from the US, France, Britain and China are competing to
profit from the rulers of often chaotic and corrupt regimes.”[126]

Somalia

In May of 2006, the Washington Post reported that the US has been
“secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce
battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.”[127]

In December of 2006, Ethiopia, heavily backed and supported by the US,
invaded and occupied Somalia, ousting the Islamist government. The US
support for the operations was based upon the claims of Somalia being a
breeding ground for terrorists and Al-Qaeda. However, this was has now
turned into an insurgency. Wired Magazine reported in December of 2008
that, “For several years the U.S. military has fought a covert war in
Somalia, using gunships, drones and Special Forces to break up suspected
terror networks

– and enlisting Ethiopia’s aid in propping up a pro-U.S. "transitional"
government.”[128]

However, there is naturally more to this than fighting “terrorists.”
Civil war has raged in Somalia since 1991, creating destabilization and
political instability. The UN intervened between 1992 and 1995, and the
US sent in Special Forces in 1993. As the Los Angeles Times revealed in
1993, “four major U.S. oil companies are quietly sitting on a
prospective fortune in exclusive concessions to explore and exploit tens
of millions of acres of the Somali countryside.” According to the
article, “nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil
giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before
Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the
nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991.”

Further:

Conoco Inc., the only major multinational corporation to maintain a
functioning office in Mogadishu throughout the past two years of
nationwide anarchy, has been directly involved in the U.S. government's
role in the U.N.-sponsored humanitarian military effort.

Conoco, whose tireless exploration efforts in north-central Somalia
reportedly had yielded the most encouraging prospects just before Siad
Barre's fall, permitted its Mogadishu corporate compound to be
transformed into a de facto American embassy a few days before the U.S.
Marines landed in the capital, with Bush's special envoy using it as his
temporary headquarters. In addition, the president of the company's
subsidiary in Somalia won high official praise for serving as the
government's volunteer "facilitator" during the months before and during
the U.S. intervention.[129]

The Ethiopian troops occupied Somalia for a couple years, and in January
of 2009, the last Ethiopian troops left the capital city of Mogadishu.
In 2007, the UN authorized an African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in
Somalia. In March of 2007, Ugandan military officials landed in Somalia.
Essentially, what this has done is that the more overt Ethiopian
occupation of Somalia has been replaced with a UN-mandated African Union
occupation of the country, in which Ugandan troops make up the majority.
Since Uganda is a proxy military state for the US in the region, the
more overt US supported Ethiopian troops have been replaced by a more
covert US-supported Ugandan contingent.

Africom

In 2007, Newsweek reported that, “America is quietly expanding its fight
against terror on the African front. Two years ago the United States set
up the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership with nine countries in
central and western Africa. There is no permanent presence, but the hope
is to generate support and suppress radicalism by both sharing U.S.
weapons and tactics with friendly regimes and winning friends through a
vast humanitarian program assembled by USAID, including well building
and vocational training.” The Pentagon announced the formation of a new
military strategic command called “Africom” (Africa Command), which
“will integrate existing diplomatic, economic and humanitarian programs
into a single strategic vision for Africa, bring more attention to
long-ignored American intelligence-gathering and energy concerns on the
continent, and elevate African interests to the same level of importance
as those of Asia and the Middle East.”

The article gave brief mention to critics, saying that, “Not
surprisingly, the establishment of a major American base in Africa is
inspiring new criticism from European and African critics of U.S.
imperial overreach.” Some claim it represents a “militarization of U.S.
Africa policy,” which is not a stretch of imaginations, as the article
pointed out, “the United States has identified the Sahel, a region
stretching west from Eritrea across the broadest part of Africa, as the
next critical zone in the War on Terror and started working with
repressive governments in Chad and Algeria, among others, to further
American interests there.”

As Newsweek further reported:

The problem is that, increasingly, African leaders appear not to want
Africom. They see it as the next phase of the War on Terror—a way to
pursue jihadists inside Africa's weak or failed states, which many U.S.
officials have described as breeding grounds for terror. They worry that
the flow of arms will overwhelm the flow of aid, and that U.S.
counterterrorism will further destabilize a region already prone to
civil wars.[130]

Africom is the new American military command designed to control Africa,
which currently sits as an important neo-colonial battleground between
the US and China. Africa still remains a major front in the imperialist
adventures of the dominant powers of the New World Order. Its rich
wealth in resources makes it an important strategic location for the
world powers to seek hegemony over.

Conclusion

The continuation of the Cold War stances of the West versus the East
remain and are exacerbated, in what can be referred to as a “New Cold
War.” At the same time, global regional conflicts continue to be waged
and expanded, be it in the Middle East, Central Africa or Central Asia,
with coups and regime change being furthered in Eastern Europe, South
America and across the globe. However, these two major global issues:
regional wars and conflict and the New Cold War, are not separate, but
inherently linked. An exacerbation of conflict, in any and all regions,
will only serve to strengthen the political-strategic conflict between
the US-NATO alliance and the Russia-China alliance.

All that is required for a new major world war is just one spark:
whether it comes in the form of a war between Pakistan and India, or a
military strike on Iran, in which case China and Russia would not sit
idly by as they did with Iraq. A strike on Iran, particularly with
nuclear missiles, as is proposed, would result in World War III. So why
does strategy on the part of the US and NATO continue to push in this
direction?

As George Orwell once wrote:

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.
Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and
ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever
have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep
society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group
against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either
Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

A New World War would be a global war waged by a global ruling class
against the citizens of the world, with the aim of maintaining and
reshaping hierarchical society to serve their own interests. It would
indeed symbolize a New World War for a New World Order. In a globalized
world, all conflict has global implications; the task at hand is whether
the people can realize that war is not waged against a “distant” or
“foreign” enemy, but against all people of the world.

Herman Goering, Hitler’s second in command, explained the concept of war
when he was standing trial at the Nuremberg Trials for war crimes, when
he stated, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” and that,
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is
understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.” When Goering was corrected that
in a democracy, “the people have some say in the matter through their
elected representatives,” Goering responded:

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same way in any country.[131]

Endnotes

[1] Ian Traynor, Russia edgy at spread of US bases in its backyard. The
Guardian: January 10, 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/10/afghanistan.russia

[2] Michael Mainville, U.S. bases overseas show new strategy. Post
Gazette: July 26, 2004: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04208/351890.stm

[3] BBC, US considers Polish missile base. BBC News: November 17, 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4445284.stm

[4] Adrian Blomfield, Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield.
The Telegraph: November 15, 2007:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569495/Russia-piles-pressure-on-EU-over-missile-shield.html

[5] Joby Warrick and R. Jeffrey Smith, U.S.-Russian Team Deems Missile
Shield in Europe Ineffective. The Washington Post: May 19, 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803055.html

[6] MARK MAZZETTI, U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work. The New York
Times: December 3, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html

[7] ROBERT BURNS, U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense. The
Washington Post: April 24, 2007:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042400871.html

[8] Luke Harding, Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence.
The Guardian: April 11, 2007:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/11/usa.topstories3

[9] EDWARD WONG and ALAN COWELL, Russia and China Attack U.S. Missile
Shield Plan. The New York Times: May 24, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/world/24china.html

[10] AP, Russia Warns of Military Response If U.S.-Czech Missile Defense
Agreement Approved. Fox News: July 8, 2008:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378065,00.html

[11] THOM SHANKER and NICHOLAS KULISH, Russia Lashes Out on Missile
Deal. The New York Times: August 15, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/16poland.html

[12] Russia angry over US missile shield. Al-Jazeera: August 15, 2008:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/200881514010734640.html

[13] Harry de Quetteville and Andrew Pierce, Russia threatens nuclear
attack on Poland over US missile shield deal. The Telegraph: August 15,
2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2566005/Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Poland-over-US-missile-shield-deal.html

[14] Xinhua, Obama says missile defense system in Eastern Europe to go
forward if "Iranian threat" persists. China View: April 6, 2009:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/06/content_11136423.htm

[15] Dmitry Solovyov, Russia could deploy missiles near Poland: officer.
Reuters: May 21, 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54K3HH20090521

[16] AP, Medvedev warns US against Eastern Europe missile shield. Gulf
News: July 11, 2009: http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Russia/10330523.html

[17] David Blair, Russia and China warn against war with Iran. The
Telegraph: September 18, 2007:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563593/Russia-and-China-warn-against-war-with-Iran.html

[18] Op. Ed, Iran and China to strengthen cooperation. Press TV: July
27, 2008: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=64942&sectionid=3510303

[19] Xinhua, Iran warns any attack would start world war. China Daily:
August 31, 2008:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-08/31/content_6984250.htm

[20] Xinhua, Minister: Iran, Russia to boost military cooperation.
Xinhua News Agency: February 16, 2009:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/16/content_10824531.htm

[21] Tony Halpin, Russia ratchets up US tensions with arms sales to Iran
and Venezuela. The Time Online: September 19, 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4781027.ece

[22] James Kanter, OPEC warns against military conflict with Iran. The
New York Times: July 10, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/business/worldbusiness/10iht-opec.4.14403619.html?_r=1

[23] Charles Tannock, Backing Kazakhstan's 'great game'. The Guardian:
February 18, 2008:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/18/backingkazakhstansgreatgame

[24] DT, Security alliances led by Russia, China link up. Daily Times:
October 6, 2007:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\10\06\story_6-10-2007_pg4_3

[25] Press TV, Iran could join CSTO. Press TV: May 14, 2007:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=9808&sectionid=3510212

[26] FNA, CSTO to Increase Security Cooperation with Iran. Fars News
Agency: April 17, 2009:
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8801280724

[27] RFE, Russian-Led CSTO Grouping Adds Military Dimension. Radio Free
Europe: February 9, 2009:
http://www.rferl.org/content/Rapid_Reaction_Force_Adds_Military_Dimension_To_CSTO/1379324.html

[28] RIA Novosti, CSTO leaders sign rapid-reaction force deal without
Belarus. RIA Novosti: June 14, 2009:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090614/155246713.html

[29] Tony Halpin, Russia and China announce new era of military
cooperation. The Times Online: April 29, 2009:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6188506.ece

[30] Li Xing, China and Russia broaden energy cooperation. China Daily:
June 17, 2009:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/17/content_8295061.htm

[31] Xinhua, Russia approves China oil pipeline plan. Xinhua News
Agency: April 13, 2009:
http://www.chinadaily.net/china/2009-04/13/content_7673401.htm

[32] Fred Weir, Russia-China war games battle extremists, separatists.
Christian Science Monitor: July 22, 2009:
http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/07/22/russia-china-war-games-battle-extremists-separatists/

[33] Civil.ge, Six Die in S.Ossetia Shootout. Civil Georgia: August 2,
2008: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871

[34] BBC, Russia vows to defend S Ossetia. BBC News: August 5, 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7543099.stm

[35] BBC, Heavy Fighting in South Ossetia. BBC News: August 8, 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7546639.stm

[36] Michel Chossudovsky, War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader
Russia-US Military Confrontation? Global Research: August 10, 2008:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9788

[37] Musa Sadulayev, Georgia: In 'State of War' Over South Ossetia. The
New York Sun: August 9, 2008:
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/georgia-in-state-of-war-over-south-ossetia/83529/

[38] Deborah Haynes, Georgia pulls 1,000 troops from Iraq. The Times
Online: August 9, 2008:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4491866.ece

[39] BBC, US military advisers arrive in Georgia. BBC News: February 27,
2002: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1843909.stm

[40] Tim Dyhouse, Green Berets now in Georgia: U.S. Special Forces are
training Georgian soldiers to fight radical Muslims. VFW Magazine:
June-July 2002:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LIY/is_10_89/ai_87509631

[41] NewsMax.com Wires, Special Forces to Train Georgian Military. News
Max: February 28, 2002:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/27/144331.shtml

[42] Reuters, U.S.-Georgia training begins amid Russia strain. Georgian
Daily: July 15, 2008:
http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4305&Itemid=67&lang=ka

[43] AP, Georgia, US start military exercises despite tensions with
Russia. CNews: July 15, 2008:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/07/15/6162566-ap.html

[44] Kavkaz Center, Russian military gangs ready to invade Georgia. U.S.
sends thousand marines in response. Kavkaz Center: July 10, 2008:
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/07/10/9971.shtml

[45] News Europe, US army exercises begin in Georgia. Al-Jazeera: July
15, 2008:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/07/200871515107741998.html

[46] AFP, Russia: US Military Advisers In Georgia Ahead Of Conflict.
Morningstar: August 12, 2008:
http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200808121135DOWJONESDJONLINE000420_univ.xml

[47] RT, NATO encouraged Georgia – Russian envoy. Russia Today: August
9, 2008: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28660

[48] DEBKAfile, Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with
Russia. DEBKAfile: August 8, 2008: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358

[49] Oil and Gas, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company founded. Oil and
Gas of Uzbekistan: September 19, 2002:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnc23849.htm

[50] DEBKAfile, Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with
Russia. DEBKAfile: August 8, 2008: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358

Andrew G. Marshall is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and
History at Simon Fraser University.
Andrew G. Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
Research Articles by Andrew G. Marshall

© Copyright Andrew G. Marshall , Global Research, 2009