Prophecies of American Doom

Three Arab capitals, Tunis, Cairo and Amman, are welcoming American Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Panetta will launch his Middle East tour starting in Tunisia and ending in Tel Aviv. This is what was revealed by the Department of Defense by their spokesman George Little. According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s statement, “Recent regime changes in Tunis and Cairo present new opportunities for security cooperation.” In Jerusalem and Amman specifically, the Secretary will hold talks with “close allies who share our concerns about Syria and Iran,” said Little.

Reading the previous round of statements associates them with other visits Panetta made and the statements made by his spokesperson, despite Little’s follow-up on the Pentagon’s plan. A few days ago, officials at the Department of Defense, including Panetta, announced the final days of Deputy Ashton B. Carter. In a brief visit to India, he marked the framework of his first official tour in the Asia-Pacific region. According to a press statement from the American Embassy in India, Panetta spoke here “with key Government of India officials and defense industry leaders how the United States and India can work more closely together to ensure security and prosperity in the 21st century.” What he means here, naturally, is that “the security and prosperity” of the Middle East serves the interests of Washington in the region. The countries in the region are subsequently subject to a grand U.S. strategy directed at them.

Regarding the situation in the Persian Gulf, Panetta said prior to that statement, on July 18, 2012 specifically, that “we’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that the Iranian attempt to close down shipping in the Gulf is something that we are going to be able to defeat, if they make a decision to do that. … The Iranians need to understand that the United States and the international community are going to hold them directly responsible for any disruption of shipping in that region, by Iran or for that matter by its surrogates.” The meeting was also preceded by a sudden exchange between U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and his British counterpart Philip Hammond at the headquarters of the Department of Defense in order to discuss several issues, including promoting relations between the two countries militarily.

This coincided with a parallel statement by the Pentagon that states the U.S.’ concerns, which will “move the USS Stennis aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf four months earlier than planned in order to maintain current force levels.”

Earlier this year, and on board a plane to Singapore, Leon Panetta said, “Any military intervention in Syria should get the support of the United Nations, (while indicating at the same time) that the recent acts of violence in Syria cannot be tolerated.”* When these statements are taken in the context of the tour that intends on taking Panetta to the Middle East, Panetta hopes to warn America that the affairs in the region include the following objectives, which are dominated by an emphasis on security and stability.

1. On approaching a solution to affairs in Syria, it is natural that Washington is keen on arranging the situation to be consistent with the protection of its interests. Syria should not stray away from Washington’s future plans for the region. Hence from now on, Washington is striving for its steps to be, at a minimum, consistent. These actions are incompatible with the countries they affect, and any results are interpreted as escalating the conflict, which is approaching a critical extreme in the Syrian arena. What Washington wants to guarantee itself here is that is can walk into the most likely scenario while still creating a “railway” for the protection of its interests. This isn’t necessarily identical to what the Syrian people want, so they are making their best efforts to win the lion’s share of the “Syrian cake” when it comes time to distribute the spoils of today’s war.

2. Washington accepted the end results of the conflict in Egypt, and before that Tunisia, as well as the arrival of political Islam in the two countries. This has forced Washington to plan and coordinate with them. This is to ensure that, at this early state of conflict resolution, it has either the consent of both capitals, Tunis and Cairo, or at a minimum, convinced them to not oppose Washington’s actions. On any project, the U.S. wants to be able to repel any attempts of major competing countries, like Russia and China, from penetrating the region by way of Syria. Both countries have ancient and deep roots in the region that extend more than half a century, especially in the Syrian military establishment. They are the most organized so far in Syria, followed by the Muslim Brotherhood in terms of organization and influence. Hence, there is no point closer to that group than the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the “Renaissance Party” in Tunisia.

3. At this highly sensitive stage, Washington is going to require a high amount of precision as it “shuffles” the papers necessary to control the steps of the Zionist entity. Washington has assured Israel that none of the possible conflict scenarios in the Syrian arena will pose a threat in the foreseeable future, at least for now. Hence there is a reason for the Zionist state to show self-restraint, as its actions would be incompatible with the American project on hand. Its actions could even hinder the U.S.’ movement in the region, as the conflicts would begin to spiral away from what it sees as the appropriate course for the Middle East.

In short, Washington wants to be the head international player in the Middle East at this stage. This is so that they can steer events here, ensuring that they have the upper hand in drawing the line and implementing its programs. Coming in line with the American’s plans makes one a puppet for these plans. If any amount of the American project succeeds, we are at the gates of the project in Syria now. The result will be similar to the standard set by the United States in Iraq when it toppled the Saddam regime. Iraq is important because it had some weight in the region, especially in regards to the decisions made on a regional scale. Now it is a collection of islands in an archipelago of political paralysis, bleeding from the inside while totally dependent on outside forces, specifically the United States. And this is not far from the Afghan scenario, centered on Kabul, which showcases the other American “farm.” This occurred regardless of minor casualties and the inflation machine, which are mechanisms of the American media in both countries.

Even in a superficial and swift manner, reading the Syrian case warns [us] that Damascus might become the third capitol after Baghdad and Kabul to suffer from disruption and paralysis. All are falling into the clutches of powerful American families obviously and blatantly hidden. Damascus is in a uniquely negative position here because it is adjacent to the Hebrew state, which makes it easier for Washington to use Tel Aviv when it needs to wave a big stick in the face of any other power in the region. Tel Aviv is responsible for the conflict in Syria, especially since they are free of the American sanctions imposed on other states, unless they too rebel against Washington’s projects. Panetta’s tour is an ominous sign, and we should draw the line for fear of these projects devastating and undermining the prospects for future success in the Arab world.

*The following quotes, while translated appropriately, could not be verified in English.