Zahid, The Gangster & The Pirate Government

Poor Zahid Hamidi. The guy used to be a lion, where nobody can say nothing bad to him, he'll fight back, right there and then, roaring and crushing them, using his power as the chosen Malay warrior and also as a trusted big dog, in a big chair, in the current ruling administration.

But that doesn't seem to be the case with the latest scandal involving a letter written by Zahid himself regarding a millionaire, who is also a world-class poker player and a gangster, by the name of Tony Phua, who is currently under investigation by LVPD in Vegas, US of A.

For weeks the opposition was firing shots at the warrior Zahid trying to get him to explain as to the reason for such letter being sent to the CIA. A letter which was clearly, (for those who understand the English language)

1. to be in the defence of Poker Phua
2. a letter with false information regarding the 14K Triad, which was later conformed by PDRM
3. a letter written without prior knowledge of the Foreign Ministry or the even the Attorney General.

More questions were being raised when the letter was withdrawn in the Nevada District Court in Las Vegas, after Putrajaya objected to it being used in Phua's defence. Now this is gettin serious, but which of the big dog in Putrajaya knew about this, have asked for that particular letter to be withdrawn?

So after a month of thinking, (honestly this is an act that is quite foreign to our man, Zahid) on how to answer to all this allegations directed towards him, the lion finally did a press conference and as expected didn't say much of anything except repeating the same shit, that Poker Phua is not a member of 14K Triad and that no such group was found to exist here in Malaysia. Shit! A whole month's worth of time and all he can come up with is the same lame ass bullshit that was written in that letter? Come on, what happen to Dr Spin, at least you can do is to spin something up, something short, maybe. But no. And at the same time, he kept refusing to give any explanation whatsoever regarding Tony Phua's involvement with the government on the nation's security, proclaiming that those are considered to be under the Official Secret Act. Isn't that just so typical? Pointing directly to the gold.

Now, to those who're still new to the Malaysian style of governing, this is a pretty common practice, used by our politicians in order to stop any line of inquiries that will point them as the guilty party, which is to sweep all informations available under the word "national security" and locked em up with a key called the Official Secret Act. This is an act that has nothing much to do with protecting our nation as much as it is used to basically just cover up all those hanky panky done by these pirate government of ours so that it'll never be known to the public.

Anyway, what was not answered, is this part of the letter, where our little Zahid wrote:

1. Phua helped the Malaysian government in “projects affecting our national security”
2. “We continue to call upon him to assist us from time to time as such, we are eager for him to  return to Malaysia”
3. Phua’s release would impact on furthering “good international relations between our two   countries, especially in the exchange of information”.

Let's look at these words being used here really carefully. Does it sounded to you as if Poker Phua is a criminal, or a gambling kingpin or even a member of the brutal Hong Kong 14K Triad? No, I don't think so. It seems to me like Poker Phua is in fact quite an asset actually, a golden boy of some sort, in this pirate government of ours, since they are so "eager" in having him back home, and I'm sure for none other than to assist in those important matters of national security which he has shown to be one of the essential key player. And just imagine, the impact that could have happened between those two countries involved, if Phua is to be released by the American authority. Doesn't that sound a bit like pleading for Poker Phua's release? I don't know about you, but honestly I don't think that I'm far from the truth here, and I'm pretty damn sure of it.

Unfortunately, the cabinet, heads by Muhyiddin said that they were very suprised and unaware of the letter written by Zahid, which can only tells us how rarely these people actually read the news or care about any important issues of the day, or, they're just lying their asses off, both situation which are, quite honestly valid and pretty much damn believable.

Futhermore after being brief by the warrior Zahid, the cabinet decided that there's nothing that can be considered as wrongdoing, or something that is against the law as to what was being written in that letter. My God! What has happened to this cabinet of ours? I know that their command of English is rather questionable but I never thought that they're really sucks at it! I mean, how hard it is to understand just three fucking sentences. And to not see it as suspicious is just plain ridiculous, beyond any expectation of the level of intelligence that were expected to those chosen to be sitting in the so called country's cabinet. Or is it the matter of not having the balls to go against this Malay warrior, the chosen one, the lion who is himself a gangster, desperate for any helping hand, knowing that for him, it is a do or die situation.

Even then, what about that big secret where Poker Phua helped our government with the "national security" issues. Was that big secret being explained to the cabinets by Zahid? Or is it after a lengthy confession, and a cryout for help by the Malay warrior that the cabinet decided that it wasn't necessary anymore for him to explained it any further because they've decided, that a brother in need of help, no matter how fuck up it is, has to be given a chance. After all he's fighting on our side, he is one of our guy and he's fighting for the Malays. And so the story goes.. 


@aidyadnan 

Comments on Palestinian's UN Failure

Millions of Palestinians lack fundamental rights everyone deserves. Denied for decades. Subjugated by Israeli harshness. With no end whatever in sight.

Governed by longstanding Israeli collaborators. Serving repressively as its enforcer. Benefitting at the expense of their own people.

Submitting a pathetically weak statehood resolution for Security Council consideration. An embarrassment and then some. Falling way short of what Palestinians deserve. What international law mandates. Defeated by US pressure. Its veto power. Supporting virtually everything Israel wants. Two nations united against Palestinian liberation. Determined to prevent it.

Wanting Palestinians held hostage. Under permanent bondage. Controlling virtually all aspects of their lives.

Denying them fundamental rights. Collectively punishing them. Leaving them isolated on their own. Longstanding injustice continues.

Palestine declared independence years ago. Previous articles explained. Law Professor Francis Boyle drafted its 1988 Declaration of Independence.

Predicting a "instantaneous success." De jure UN membership. Saying Palestine meets all basic requirements for statehood. Then and now. Including:

A determinable (not necessarily fixed) territory. A state comprised of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Where Palestinians lived for millennia. Rightfully deserving universally recognized sovereignty.

With a fixed population. A legitimate state. A functioning government. Peace loving. Polar opposite its repressive occupier.

Accepting UN Charter provisions. In 1988, Arafat declared the PLO Palestine's Provisional Government.


Prepared for relations with other states. On December 15, 1988, The General Assembly recognized Palestine's legitimacy. Gave it observer status.

Palestine satisfies essential statehood criteria. All UN Charter states (including America and Israel) at the time provisionally recognized Palestinian independence.

In accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4).

As the League of Nations' successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO as the Palestinian peoples' legitimate representative.

The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO's legislative body. Empowered to proclaim the existence of Palestine.

According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren automatically become citizens. So do diaspora Palestinians.

Others in Israel and Jordan are entitled to dual nationalities. Occupied Territory residents remain protected persons until final peace agreement terms are reached.

Boyle called Palestine's Declaration of Independence "determinative, definitive, and irreversible."

It recognized the UN's 1947 partition plan in good faith. Declared its commitment to UN Charter principles.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its sovereign right to defend Palestinian independence. Rejects force, violence or intimidation against its territorial integrity.

Respects other nations' political independence. Expressed willingness to accept interim UN supervision. Until Israel's occupation ends.

Called for an international peace conference. Based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

General Assembly members alone affirm new member states. By two-thirds majority vote. The Security Council only recommends admissions.

Palestinians can override Washington's veto by petitioning the General Assembly through the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377.

Doing so renders America's veto null and void. Why hasn't Abbas done it? Why haven't other key PLO officials pressured him to do so?

Why go to the wrong authority for recognition? Why not years earlier? Why sacrifice Palestinians' fundamental rights?

Petitioning Security Council members reflects unconditional surrender. Acceptance of status quo harshness. Subservience to US/Israeli authority. Betrayal of longstanding Palestinian hopes and dreams.

If proper procedures are followed, official statehood is easily attainable. Why not after all these years?

Why waste time with Security Council members? Why not General Assembly ones that matter?

With over two-thirds of its members officially recognizing Palestinian statehood, getting it is as simple as requesting it according to proper procedures.

Why let business as usual continue? After decades of Israeli repression, Palestinians remain on their own. Their inalienable rights denied.

Unattainable under corrupted PLO leadership. Beholden to Washington and Israel. Betraying its own people.

Denying them fundamental rights everyone deserves. Benefitting at their expense.

Putting a lie to its rhetorical support for Palestinian sovereignty. Letting Israel maintain permanent subjugation.


Mustafa Barghouti is a leading Palestinian human rights champion. "Those countries that voted against or abstained on the Palestinian resolution at the Security Council, regardless of how weak and compromised it was, are sending a strong message," he said.

"They oppose the two-state solution and cannot be considered peace brokers."

Diana Buttu is a former PLO legal advisor. "The resolution that was defeated tonight demonstrated the PLO leadership’s inability to recognize that the Oslo negotiations process is a complete failure," she said.

"Rather than pushing for sanctions to be imposed on Israel and attempting to charge Israeli officials with war crimes at the International Criminal Court, the resolution called for a return to the same two-decade old, fruitless negotiations process that has led to a tripling in the number of Israeli colonists living illegally on stolen Palestinian land and served as cover for the daily violence inflicted on Palestinians by Israel’s racist occupation regime."

“Despite being a flawed and weak resolution, the US and UK governments voted against it largely because it places a deadline on ending Israel’s military occupation, without even specifying what penalties Israel might face should the deadline not be met."

"It is clear from this that the US, UK and other members of the international community will continue to provide unqualified support to Israel even as it continues to systemically violate their national policies and international law, and that their professed desire to see Palestinians live in freedom and achieve their rights is nothing more than empty rhetoric."

Yousef Munayyer formerly served as Washington-based Jerusalem Fund and Palestine Center executive director. He'll soon assume new duties as head of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

"Another United Nations Security Council vote, another day under Israeli occupation," he said.

"Decade after decade the UN has considered, and even sometimes passed, resolutions calling for an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian land, but it has done little to change the status quo."

“Today's vote is but another meaningless one for Palestinians living under the boot of the Israeli military."

"Each and every episode like this, where the international community underscores its failure to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian question, is another boon to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which provides an alternative to stagnation at the UN. Perhaps that is the silver lining of this moment."

Nadia Nijab is Al-Shabaka executive director. An Institute for Palestine Studies senior fellow.

"The Palestine Liberation Organization must have been trying for a win-win: a US abstention that would send a strong signal to Israel or a US veto that would leave Palestine free to join other UN organizations and the International Criminal Court," she said.

"The failure of the resolution to win the requisite nine votes will be seen as a big setback."

"But the PLO/Palestine never really needed this resolution to make international law work for Palestinian rights."

"It already has the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of Israel’s Wall and its associated regime, non-member observer state status at the UN, and membership of UNESCO."

"And yet the past few years have been, disastrously, marked by brief spurts of activism followed by inaction and backtracking."

"Will 2015 reveal a different PLO/Palestine - one with resolution, and not just empty resolutions?"


"The dire situation on the ground and unceasing attacks on Palestinian life, limb, and land throughout the occupied territories demand no less."

Ali Abunimah is Electronic Intifada co-founder/executive director. "I feel a great sense of relief that the UN resolution on Palestine was defeated in the Security Council," he said.

"While the draft put forward by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas purported to call for an end to Israeli occupation, it did the opposite."

"It attempted to insert the vague and deceptive language of the failed Oslo peace process into a UN resolution, giving it the force of international law."

"Earlier and still valid UN Security Council resolutions - such as 465 of 1980 - are much clearer and stronger in, for example, demanding that Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land be dismantled."

“This resolution actually allowed for the settlements to remain - under the guise of 'land swaps' - a formula that was previously used by Abbas to concede most of occupied Jerusalem to Israel."

"Similarly, the resolution would have represented a significant retreat on other key Palestinian rights and interests, especially the rights of refugees."

"Several revisions to the draft - in an attempt to avoid the inevitable American veto - only further compromised Palestinian rights, which is why Abbas' initiative has been disavowed by every major Palestinian political faction and many figures within his own Fatah movement."

The Palestinian people do not need more - and weaker - UN resolutions. They need existing ones to be enforced."

Law Professor/human rights attorney Noura Eerakat said:

"Tonight’s UN Security Council vote was an unfortunate affirmation of the lack of political will amongst the strongest UN member states to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict."

"It is not a lack of understanding between peoples, nor age-old religious or ethnic discord, that impedes a resolution, but rather a failure of the international community to support the Palestinian people in their struggle for self-determination against Israel’s settler-colonial regime."

"The resolution reflected principles established among the UN General Assembly and Security Council over six decades of deliberation."

"That these appeared controversial is indicative of the inability and/or unwillingness of the US and other western states to achieve a just resolution, and more reason to support the global grassroots Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement aimed at applying pressure on Israel to cease its illegal and unjust practices."

"It is also more reason for the Palestinian leadership to place its eggs in other diplomatic baskets beyond the United States, and to launch a full-scale grassroots, media, legal, and popular campaign for Palestinian freedom and rights."

"The US’s vote is particularly telling. Combined with its 2011 veto of a resolution condemning Israel’s settlement enterprise, it makes clear that the US is still willing to shield Israel to continue its detrimental practices and to impede possible solutions to the conflict, thus demonstrating its centrality as a part of the problem."

"There is no irony in the fact that the two votes against the resolution, the US and Australia, are also settler-colonial regimes."

Long-suffering Palestinians deserve better than they've gotten. Or will under corrupted PLO leadership.

On their own to achieve long denied liberation. Maybe some day. Not now.


by Stephen Lendman

Anifah Berlagak bagaikan Presiden Putin.

Bro Anifah tak payah la nak berlagak mcm pres Putin plak? Bukannya satu perkara besar sangat pun. Lagipun, bukankah orang2 Melayu masih lagi memegang hak kuasa memerintah. Apalah yang nak dirisaukan. Tambahan pula dengan adanya "sedition act plus" nanti maka bertambah kukuhlah pemerintahan orang2 Melayu dimasa2 yang akan datang. Dan ternyatalah lebih ramai lagi yang akan berada didalam list millionaires dan juga billionaires. Lagipun diplomat Amerika tu pun cuma "puzzled" je dengan tindakan u-turn yang dibuat oleh PM Najib. Soalnya adakah itu sesuatu yang tidak benar? Dan sejak bila pulak negara2 lain diharamkan daripada membuat apa2 komen berkenaan dengan politik dinegara ini? Nampak macam terlampau sensitive plak pemimpin2 Melayu kita sekarang. Rilex Bro!

KUALA LUMPUR: Wisma Putra has summoned United States (US) Ambassador to Malaysia Joseph Y. Yun to explain his country's position on Malaysia's decision to retain the Sedition Act 1948.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman (pic) said Kuala Lumpur was disappointed that the US ambassador had chosen to highlight his unwarranted comments on the Government's decision, given Malaysia's unwavering position on moderation and tolerance.

"Malaysia regrets the comments made by Yun on the latest developments relating to the government's decision to retain the Sedition Act 1948," he said in a statement Wednesday.

The envoy in an interview with an online news portal on Dec 6, said the US was ‘puzzled’ over Malaysia's decision to retain the Sedition Act.

A day before, US Vice-President Joe Biden had also made a remark on the Act, and on Oppposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Anifah said Malaysia called on the US Government to respect the country's internal affairs and allow Malaysia the space, indispensable to all countries with maturing democracies to ensure continued peace, security and stability.

"Malaysia wishes to remind all parties that the decision relating to the Sedition Act is a prerogative of the Government," he added.

He stressed that any government decision on the Act was an internal matter and any unwarranted comment related to the matter would be regarded as interference in the countrys internal affairs.

Anifah pointed out that the Sedition Act did not hinder a vibrant democracy, but was a preventive measure to ensure that no party would incite religious and racial tension that could jeopardise peace and stability in this country.

"The Malaysian Government remains committed to maintaining peace, stability and harmony in the country, and safeguarding the multiracial and multicultural values, norms and practices in Malaysia," he said. - Bernama

Why is Malaysia not part of the MH17 investigation?

Has Malaysia been left out of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the MH17 crash because the country would not point fingers at Russia, asks the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) today.

Its president, prominent Malaysian scholar Dr Chandra Muzaffar, said it was logical and sensible for Malaysia to be part of the investigation since national carrier Malaysia Airlines (MAS) owned the downed aircraft.

In an article on the Centre for Research on Globalisation website dated November 24, he wrote that Malaysia had more rights to be in the JIT than some of its present members, and expressed hopes that a resolution endorsing a demand to be included in the team be adopted at the ongoing Umno general assembly.

“One can understand why Ukraine is in the team since that is where the plane was shot from the sky. We can understand the Netherlands’s membership of the JIT since the flight originated from Amsterdam.

“But why is Belgium in the JIT? Is it because Brussels is the administrative capital of the European Union and the EU may have some aviation responsibilities over commercial flights in the continent?

“If that is the case, then it is the EU, not Belgium, which should have a place in the team,” he wrote.

Chandra said if Australia was in the JIT because a large number of Australians were killed in that tragedy, Malaysia should also be in the team as it lost 43 citizens on board – the second largest number of casualties after 193 Dutch nationals.

He said the Unites States should perhaps be a member of the investigation team since Boeing, an American multinational, manufactured the 777 passenger jet.

MH17, which was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed in rebel-held eastern Ukraine after it was shot by an air-to-surface missile on July 17. All 298 passengers and crew members were killed.

Chandra said it had been alleged that Malaysia was left out because the country, unlike the four JIT members, would not point a finger at Russia as the cause of the MH17 disaster.

He said Malaysia would not blame Russia or pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine or anybody else “without hard, incontrovertible evidence”.

“Neither Ukraine nor the US Administration has been able to offer such evidence to the public. Comprehensive military data from satellite images of the incident would have convinced a lot of people.

“Instead, right from the outset, Ukraine, the US and a number of their allies have constructed a narrative about how pro-Russia rebels in Eastern Ukraine shot down MH 17 with a BUK system supplied by Russia,” he said.

The narrative, Chandra said, had been widely disseminated through a biased global media that raised no questions about the motives behind the action or who would have benefitted from it.

He said the anger generated by the “mass murder in the skies” especially in Europe had enabled certain parties to expand and reinforce their economic sanctions against Russia.

In such a situation, he said it was “absolutely right” for Malaysia to adopt a principled position on MH17 which refrained from condemning any party until all the investigations have been completed.

“This is why we are insisting upon total access to the crash site to enable investigators to collect all relevant evidence.

“Malaysia is also demanding that it be given a seat in the JIT. It is a demand that undoubtedly has the support of the entire nation,” he said, adding that Umno, the backbone of the Malaysian government, could adopt a resolution endorsing this demand at its general assembly that ends this Saturday.

Chandra said the Malaysian parliament, which is also in session, should lend its weight to a demand, which was at the heart of our integrity and sovereignty as a nation.

“It is just not only because MH17 is ours. It is just because we have a fair and balanced approach to the tragedy and its probe. We want the entire truth to be known.

“Our participation in the investigation will at least help to check any attempt to conceal or camouflage the real story behind one of the most heinous crimes in recent times,” he added.

Efforts to recovery the plane’s wreckage and debris from the crash site was were recently completed.

It was reported that the wreckage and debris were sent by train to Kharkiv, accompanied by Dutch police and observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The train also carried the remains of some victims. It was reported that the wreckage and remains would be sent to the Netherlands from Kharkiv.

By Looi Sue-Chern

America Never Intended to Defeat The Islamic State (ISIS)

A torrent of “foiled” terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. 

In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself. According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS’ regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific. 

US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat 

Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS’ alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria – the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be “contained.” Of course, this “containment” will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change – serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.

More troubling still, such policymakers hail from the US-based Brookings Institution, a prominent corporate-financier funded policy think-tank that has helped direct American foreign policy for decades. Brookings “Federal Executive Fellow” Robert Hein, a career US Navy officer, has presented analysis under an article titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” After diminishing the threat ISIS actually poses to the US and suggesting that the battle against the terrorist organization will be perpetual – without qualification he claims:

There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.

It would have been interesting if Hein did qualify that final statement – explaining how an extraterritorial terrorist army armed and funded by some of the largest, most influential nation-states on Earth, currently ravaging three nations while allegedly plotting against the rest of the planet is somehow a lesser threat than Iran and Syria – both of which have not threatened the United States, and in fact, according to the Brookings Institution itself, have expressed a specific desire to avoid a confrontation with the West.

ISIS is a Lesser Threat – But a Lesser Threat to Whom? 

As bizarre as Hein’s analysis may seem, it strikes at a troubling but undeniable truth. If by “US” Hein meant the American people, America’s service members, and victims of various staged attacks aimed at justifying foreign wars, then ISIS is a threat. For the many millions living in the Middle East or North Africa, ISIS is undoubtedly a threat. For corporate-financiers on Wall Street, the many corrupt politicians in Wall Street’s pocket in Washington, or corporate-financier funded policymakers like Hein himself, ISIS is not only not a threat, but an indispensable asset.

As such, prioritizing ISIS’ destruction is not part of Wall Street or Washington’s agenda – rather – perpetuating this threat for as long as possible is. Hein is unabashed about this notion, claiming:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all.

Hein’s strategy also works exceedingly well if ISIS was intentionally created as a proxy mercenary force, deployed by the West against its enemies. Such a notion, while dismissed out of hand by many as a “conspiracy theory” is not only plausible, but in fact a documented fact. The use of terrorists and sectarian extremists is a reoccurring feature in Western foreign policy – including its most notorious use in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980′s where the US created Al Qaeda to begin with. As recently as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh documented a conspiracy to once again use sectarian extremists aligned with Al Qaeda to target, undermine, and overthrow the government of Syria and wage a proxy war against Iran.

His report titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?“ stated (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

It would be difficult to read Hersh’s 2007 report and attempt to deny that is not precisely what has unfolded, verbatim, beginning under the cover of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” up to and including the creation of “ISIS” and its growing fighting capabilities possible only through an immense, coordinated multinational effort.

The creation of ISIS and what appears to be concerted attempts to justify the slow burn prescribed to “stop it” are echoed in Hein’s proposal of “not stopping ISIS to stop it.”

Why Syria and Iran are Bigger “Threats” 

Ironically, it was an extensive policy paper produced by the very think tank Hein belongs to – Brookings Institution – that noted Iran (and therefore Syria) not only did not want war with the West, but was willing to weather endless covert provocations to avoid giving the West an excuse to wage hegemonic war against the nations. Within the pages of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report published in 2009, it was stated:

With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

 Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.

 The report would also state:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

The entire report is a documented conspiracy to justify and provoke war with a nation actively seeking to avoid war even at the cost of suffering innumerable humiliations, covert attacks, assassinations, decades-spanning sanctions, and other forms of terroristic provocations.  When Hein and other US policymakers refer to Iran and Syria as a “greater threat” than ISIS, they do not mean a threat to the national security of the American people or the territory of the United States itself – but rather a threat to their own hegemonic interests well beyond America’s borders and even interests that lie within the borders of Iran and Syria themselves.

Deciphering the deceptive, criminal language used by US policymakers illuminates the ongoing conspiracy in which ISIS plays a central part. ISIS is considered not a threat – not because the US can manage what they claim is an inherently “anti-Western” terrorist organization – but rather because the US itself created and controls it. Syria and Iran, while not actual threats to the West, are considered instead “threats” to US interests – more specifically – the interests of the corporate-financier elite on Wall Street and their lobbyists in Washington D.C.


Tony Cartalucci, 
Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, 
especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.