by Tony Cartalucci
May 28, 2012 -The Brookings Institution is a Fortune 500-chaired and funded (p. 35 .pdf) US policy think tank and represents policy makers responsible for the vast majority of both America’s domestic and foreign policy. While some may naively believe President Obama or America’s elected representatives sit behind their desks late at night penning America’s future, in reality, they merely use their desks to rubber-stamp what think-tanks like Brookings passes to them.
And certainly, that policy reflects not the interests of the American people, but of the corporations that spend millions a year to keep these think-tanks flush in cash and ideas, as well as providing them the means to sell these ideas to an unwitting public. Those acquainted with these think-tanks are aware years in advance of wars, conflicts, and conspiracies that take the rest of the public by surprise as events seemingly, “spontaneously” unfold “live” on CNN.
The Brookings Institution in particular had as early as 2009, articulated a full strategy with which the US would use to undermine, divide, and destroy Iran and its sphere of influence throughout the Middle East. The report titled, “Which Path to Persia?” mentions everything from arming US State Department-listed terrorist organizations, to withdrawing troops from Iraq to allow for an Israel airstrike, to intentionally provoking a war Iran neither sought nor desired. Each one of these options are still, as of today, either fully being executed or “on the table.”
Image: Brookings Institution’s Middle East Memo #21 “Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” makes no secret that the humanitarian “responsibility to protect” is but a pretext for long-planned regime change.
More recently, Brookings has published “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change (.pdf),” which at face value betrays the narrative the West has attempted to maintain – that humanitarian concerns, not regime change, drives Western intervention in Syria. Not only does the Brookings memo admit the US would like to avoid a settlement or ceasefire that leaves Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, but continues on by stating the UN mission can be used as cover to establish “safe havens” and “humanitarian corridors” from which further “coercive action” can be dealt:
“An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.” –page 4, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
On pages 8 and 9, the memo states:
“The United States might still arm the opposition even knowing they will probably never have sufficient power, on their own, to dislodge the Asad network. Washington might choose to do so simply in the belief that at least providing an oppressed people with some ability to resist their oppressors is better than doing nothing at all, even if the support provided has little chance of turning defeat into victory. Alternatively, the United States might calculate that it is still worthwhile to pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention.” –pages 8-9, Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution.
In other words, the US is seeking to perpetuate endless bloodshed simply to weaken Syria’s geopolitical influence throughout the region – most obviously running contra to any concept of “humanitarianism” or “international law,” and certainly, purposefully causing more death and carnage, not preventing it. Surely this signed confession seems worthy of airing before the UN Security Council, especially in light of recent revelations that the US and Gulf States are already arming Syria’s opposition with this specific perpetuated bloodshed in mind.
The memo continues by articulating various combinations of military intervention and support to be provided to the so-called “Free Syrian Army (FSA)” – this with full knowledge that the FSA has been conducting documented widespread atrocities of their own, having direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and conducting a terrorist bombing campaign targeting civilian populations carried out by militants who admit to having fought as Al Qaeda in Iraq against US troops. Again, it appears that Brookings has conspired to violate a myriad of both national and international laws, in particular, USC § 2339B: Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
Image: Some of the corporate sponsors behind the Brookings Institution. America is bled to death literally and financially to fight wars of profit and conquest for these corporate-financier oligarchs on Wall Street and in London. (click image to enlarge)
The depths of depravity from which each of Brookings’ “options” are drawn is horrifying on a Hitlerian scale and represents not only a moral crisis amongst American policy, but a Constitutional crisis – as the policy makers crafting and promoting these “options” (many of which have already been demonstratively carried out) are entirely unelected, are subject to no oversight, Congressional or otherwise, and worse yet, remain mostly out of the eye of an unsuspecting public. Furthermore, Brookings’ “Middle East Memo #21” is a signed confession of a conspiracy against both the people of Syria and world peace – undermining the “moral imperative” and the “responsibility to protect” those behind Brookings’ policy papers seek to justify their pursuit of global corporate-financier and military hegemony.