by Scott Creighton
In one of the recent Wikileaks emails they released the other day, we find a rather interesting explanation from Hillary Clinton about the “restructuring” of the Middle East. It smacks of Condi Rice’s “Birth Pangs of a New Middle East” so much I had to make note of it.
We all know Wikileaks is a disinfo campaign which has been used in the past to discredit a number of national leaders around the world who the deep state wish to regime change. That is not a question and this email chain between Clinton and John Podesta (then serving as Counselor to President Barack Obama from Jan. 2014 to Feb. 2015) is being promoted with a focus on a rather innocuous part of Clinton’s “eight point plan” which says Saudi Arabia and Qatar are secretly funding “ISIS” and they should stop.
“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Isis] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious US pressure.” Hillary Clinton, 2014
The disinfo value of this take on the email is obvious: its Saudi Arabia and Qatar assisting “ISIS” in Syria and not the Western forces that really are. Thus is the usefulness of Wikileaks.
Though interesting in the sense that Hillary’s (and Bernie’s) plan to combat “ISIS” is to give more money and flexibility to our allies in the region (like Saudi Arabia and Qatar), the ones serving as out proxy enablers of our proxy armies, that’s not the headline that should come from this email (copied in its entirety below)
Read this, point 6 in Hillary’s email to Podesta:
“>> 6. In the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. These developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and strategic commitments in Jordan. At the same time, as Turkey moves toward a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained to protect our national interests. This course of action offers the potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time” Hillary Clinton, Aug. 19, 2014
It is my belief that this quote from Hillary to Obama’s counselor Podesta, is the most important and certainly, the most damning. How Wikileaks and the rest of the so-called “alternative” media missed it is curious too say the least.
First of all, it proves Hillary Clinton was still influencing Barack Obama’s foreign policy maneuvers even after she left the State Department, at least up until Feb. 2015. John Podesta has been a long-time Clintonite going all the way back to the Slick Willie days in the White House. His firm, the Podesta Group, was supporting the brutal dictator Mubarak in Egypt right up to the end as they were slaughtering protesters during the real uprising that took place back then. Mubarak was a family friend of the Clintons.
Now known as the Podesta Group, the firm “has close ties to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration [and] has been retained by some of the biggest corporations in the country, including Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin.”
The “restructuring” Hillary is talking about is what Condi Rice once referred to as “the birth pangs of a New Middle East”
“What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing — the birth pangs of a new Middle East. And whatever we do, we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.” Condi Rice, July 2006
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya wrote about this “new Middle East” back in Nov. of 2006.
This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.
The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives” Global Research, Nov. 2006
An arc of instability stretching from Libya to Syria and Turkey and the “constructive chaos” resulting from it creating the atmosphere for the entire “restructuring” of the Middle East. Does that sound like what we see taking place these days? Is it what Hillary Clinton was talking about to Mr. Podesta, who’s firm by the way serves the military industrial complex AND Big Oil?
If this email leak is proven to be authentic, this is big takeaway from that one. Not only does it prove that, dispite her protestations, Hillary Clinton was still deeply involved in steering US foreign policy long after leaving the State Department, but it also goes to show that the Obama administration is nothing like the “CHANGE” they promised. It was a seamless, left-cover continuation of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy agenda to build a New Middle East through proxy violence and all out Shock and Awe warfare.
And it proves none of this is about “humanitarian” interests. Not Iraq, not Libya, not Syria. It’s about oil and our “national interests” and Hillary’s steely determination to use all aspects of our military might to advance Condi Rice’s New Middle East operation.
Leave it to the controlled opposition honeypot Wikileaks to bury the lead in this story.
Date: 2014-09-27 15:15
Send our love to Chelsea, Marc and Grandpa. Can’t wait to meet Charlotte.
On Aug 19, 2014 9:22 AM, “H” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Agree but there may be opportunities as the Iraqi piece improves.
Also, any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya?
Worth analyzing for future purposes.
*From*: John Podesta [mailto:email@example.com]
*Sent*: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 09:19 AM
*Subject*: Re: Here’s what I mentioned
Hit send too soon. Meant to say Syria elements are vexing.
On Aug 19, 2014 9:17 AM, “John Podesta” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think we are headed down this path in Iraq, but the Syria elements are
> On Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM, “H” <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
>> in the region.
>> 1. With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL
>> through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it
>> deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle
>> East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of
>> intelligence resources and Special Operations troops in an aggressive
>> manner, while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more
>> traditional military operations. In Iraq it is important that we engage
>> ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional
>> Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi
>> Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive hard fighting troops, who
>> have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces
>> operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S.
>> personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new
>> generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional
>> combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a
>> real defeat on ISIL.
>> 2. It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now
>> done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are
>> driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be
>> seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as
>> an American defeat. However, if we provide advisors and planners, as well
>> as increased close air support for the Peshmerga, these soldiers can defeat
>> ISIL. They will give the new Iraqi Government a chance to organize itself,
>> and restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria, moving the center of power
>> toward moderate forces like the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In addition to air
>> support, the Peshmerga also need artillery and armored vehicles to deal
>> with the tanks and other heavy equipment captured from the Iraqi army by
>> 3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff,
>> did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that
>> they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The
>> current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in
>> Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be
>> airlifted directly into the KRG zone.
>> 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the
>> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the
>> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders
>> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in
>> Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to
>> provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will
>> allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against
>> the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile,
>> avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best
>> temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving
>> forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence
>> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
>> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and
>> other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by
>> the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put
>> in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to
>> dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By
>> the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve
>> to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where
>> insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.
>> 6. In the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most
>> dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across
>> North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. These developments are
>> important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to
>> country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and
>> strategic commitments in Jordan. At the same time, as Turkey moves toward
>> a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to
>> realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained
>> to protect our national interests. This course of action offers the
>> potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military
>> campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time.
>> 7. (Note: A source in Tripoli stated in confidence that when the U.S.
>> Embassy was evacuated, the presence of two U.S. Navy jet fighters over the
>> city brought all fighting to a halt for several hours, as Islamist forces
>> were not certain that these aircraft would not also provide close ground
>> support for moderate government forces.)
>> 8. If we do not take the changes needed to make our security
>> policy in the region more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL
>> veterans moving on to other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist
>> forces. This is already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are
>> returning from Syria to work with local forces. ISIL is only the latest and
>> most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat them in
>> Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop. Successful
>> military operations against these very irregular but determined forces can
>> only be accomplished by making proper use of clandestine/special operations
>> resources, in coordination with airpower, and established local allies.
>> There is, unfortunately, a narrow window of opportunity on this issue, as
>> we need to act before an ISIL state becomes better organized and reaches
>> into Lebanon and Jordan.
>> 9. (Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of
>> this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of Iraq and
>> the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled
>> territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga command we can reassure the
>> concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not
>> exclude the Iraqi Government from participation in the management of the
>> oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the
>> same time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL
>> into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can
>> move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad
>> does not gain an advantage from these operations. Finally, as it now
>> appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to
>> the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more
>> effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.)