Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

  • Iran opens airspace to China warplanes

    Iran opens airspace to China warplanes

    The Islamic Republic of Iran has reportedly opened its airspace to Chinese warplanes taking part in joint military maneuvers with Turkey.

    Ankara and Beijing conducted the drills in Turkey’s Central Anatolia region last month.

    The war games, codenamed the Anatolian Eagle, were the first involving Turkey and China. Turkey had previously carried out Anatolian Eagle maneuvers with the US and other NATO members as well as Israel.

    Turkish F-16, Chinese Su-27 and Mig-29 fighter jets took part in mock dogfights during the drills.

    The maneuvers come ahead of a planned visit by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to Turkey.

    Turkey and China took their first step in military cooperation in the late 1990s with joint missile production, manufacturing weapons with a 150-kilometer range, the Hurriyet daily reported on its website.

    The multinational Anatolian Eagle exercise is hosted by the Turkish Air Forces and is aimed at boosting aerial cooperation and training. The exercises have been performed since June 2001.

    NN/HGH/MMN

    , Oct 3, 2010

  • Turkey and Russia Defy America’s Imperial Design in the Middle East and Central Asia

    Turkey and Russia Defy America’s Imperial Design in the Middle East and Central Asia

    by Eric Walberg
     
    Global Research, October 1, 2010
    Al-Ahram Weekly

    The new Ottomans and the new Byzantines are poised for an intercept as the US stumbles in the current Great Game.

    The neocon plan to transform the Middle East and Central Asia into a pliant client of the US empire and its only-democracy-in-the-Middle-East is now facing a very different playing field. Not only are the wars against the Palestinians, Afghans and Iraqis floundering, but they have set in motion unforeseen moves by all the regional players.

    The empire faces a resurgent Turkey, heir to the Ottomans, who governed a largely peaceful Middle East for half a millennium. As part of a dynamic diplomatic outreach under the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkey re-established the Caliphate visa-free tradition with Albania, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Syria last year. In February Turkish Culture and Tourism Minister Ertugrul Gunay offered to do likewise with Egypt. There is “a great new plan of creating a Middle East Union as a regional equivalent of the European Union” with Turkey, fresh from a resounding constitutional referendum win by the AKP, writes Israel Shamir.

    Turkey also established a strategic partnership with Russia during the past two years, with a visa-free regime and ambitious trade and investment plans (denominated in rubles and lira), including the construction of new pipelines and nuclear energy facilities.

    Just as Turkey is heir to the Ottomans, Russia is heir to the Byzantines, who ruled a largely peaceful Middle East for close to a millennium before the Turks. Together, Russia and Turkey have far more justification as Middle Eastern “hegemons” than the British-American 20th century usurpers, and they are doing something about it.

    In a delicious irony, invasions by the US and Israel in the Middle East and Eurasia have not cowed the countries affected, but emboldened them to work together, creating the basis for a new alignment of forces, including Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iran.

    Syria, Turkey and Iran are united not only by tradition, faith, resistance to US-Israeli plans, but by their common need to fight Kurdish separatists, who have been supported by both the US and Israel. Their economic cooperation is growing by leaps and bounds. Adding Russia to the mix constitutes a like-minded, strong regional force encompassing the full socio-political spectrum, from Sunni and Shia Muslim, Christian, even Jewish, to secular traditions.

    This is the natural regional geopolitical logic, not the artificial one imposed over the past 150 years by the British and now US empires. Just as the Crusaders came to wreak havoc a millennium ago, forcing locals to unite to expel the invaders, so today’s Crusaders have set in motion the forces of their own demise.

    Turkey’s bold move with Brazil to defuse the West’s stand-off with Iran caught the world’s imagination in May. Its defiance of Israel after the Israeli attack on the Peace Flotilla trying to break the siege of Gaza in June made it the darling of the Arab world.

    Russia has its own, less spectacular contributions to these, the most burning issues in the Middle East today. There are problems for Russia. Its crippled economy and weakened military give it pause in anything that might provoke the world superpower. Its elites are divided on how far to pursuit accommodation with the US. The tragedies of Afghanistan and Chechnya and fears arising from the impasse in most of the “stans” continue to plague Russia’s relations with the Muslim Middle East.

    Since the departure of Soviet forces from Egypt in 1972, Russia has not officially had a strong presence in the Middle East. Since the mid- 1980s, it saw a million-odd Russians emigrate to Israel, who like immigrants anywhere, are anxious to prove their devotion and are on the whole unwilling to give up land in any two-state solution for Palestine. As Anatol Sharansky quipped to Bill Clinton after he emigrated, “I come from one of the biggest countries in the world to one of the smallest. You want me to cut it in half. No, thank you.” Russia now has its very own well-funded Israel Lobby; many Russians are dual Israeli citizens, enjoying a visa-free regime with Israel.

    Then there is Russia’s equivocal stance on the stand-off between the West and Iran. Russia cooperates with Iran on nuclear energy, but has concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions, supporting Security Council sanctions and cancelling the S-300 missile deal it signed with Iran in 2005. It is also increasing its support for US efforts in Afghanistan. Many commentators conclude that these are signs that the Russian leadership under President Dmitri Medvedev is caving in to Washington, backtracking on the more anti-imperial policy of Putin. “They showed that they are not reliable,” criticised Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi.

    Russia is fence-sitting on this tricky dilemma. It is also siding, so far, with the US and the EU in refusing to include Turkey and Brazil in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. “The Non-Aligned countries in general, and Iran in particular, have interpreted the Russian vote as the will on the part of a great power to prevent emerging powers from attaining the energy independence they need for their economic development. And it will be difficult to make them forget this Russian faux pas,” argues Thierry Meyssan at voltairenet.org.

    Whatever the truth is there, the cooperation with Iran and now Turkey, Syria and Egypt on developing peaceful nuclear power, and the recent agreement to sell Syria advanced P-800 cruise missiles show Russia is hardly the plaything of the US and Israel in Middle East issues. Israel is furious over the missile sale to Syria, and last week threatened to sell “strategic, tie-breaking weapons” to “areas of strategic importance” to Russia in revenge. On both Iran and Syria, Russia’s moves suggest it is trying to calm volatile situations that could explode.

    There are other reasons to see Russia as a possible Middle East powerbroker. The millions of Russian Jews who moved to Israel are not necessarily a Lieberman-like Achilles Heel for Russia. A third of them are scornfully dismissed as not sufficiently kosher and could be a serious problem for a state that is founded solely on racial purity. Many have returned to Russia or managed to move on to greener pastures. Already, such prominent rightwing politicians as Moshe Arens, political patron of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are considering a one-state solution. Perhaps these Russian immigrants will produce a Frederik de Klerk to re-enact the dismantling of South African apartheid.

    Russia holds another intriguing key to peace in the Middle East. Zionism from the start was a secular socialist movement, with religious conservative Jews strongly opposed, a situation that continues even today, despite the defection of many under blandishments from the likes of Ben Gurion and Netanyahu. Like the Palestinians, True Torah Jews don’t recognise the “Jewish state”.

    But wait! There is a legitimate Jewish state, a secular one set up in 1928 in Birobidjan Russia, in accordance with Soviet secular nationalities policies. There is nothing stopping Israeli Jews, orthodox and secular alike, from moving to this Jewish homeland, blessed with abundant raw materials, Golda Meir’s “a land without a people for a people without a land”. It has taken on a new lease on life since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev made an unprecedented visit this summer, the first ever of a Russian (or Soviet) leader and pointed out the strong Russian state support it has as a Jewish homeland where Yiddish, the secular language of European Jews (not sacred Hebrew), is the state language.

    There has been no magic hand guiding Turkey and Russia as they form the axis of a new political formation. Rather it is the resilience of Islam in the face of Western onslaught, plus — surprisingly — a page from the history of Soviet secular national self-determination. Turkey, once the “sick man of Europe”, is now “the only healthy man of Europe”, Turkish President Abdullah Gul was told at the UN Millennium Goals Summit last week, positioning it along with the Russian, and friends Iranian and Syrian to clean up the mess created by the British empire and its “democratic” offspring, the US and Israel.

    While US and Israeli strategists continue to pore over mad schemes to invade Iran, Russian and Turkish leaders plan to increase trade and development in the Middle East, including nuclear power. From a Middle Eastern point of view, Russia’s eagerness to build power stations in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Egypt shows a desire to help accelerate the economic development that Westerners have long denied the Middle East — other than Israel — for so long. This includes Lebanon where Stroitransgaz and Gazprom will transit Syrian gas until Beirut can overcome Israeli-imposed obstacles to the exploitation of its large reserves offshore.

    Russia in its own way, like its ally Turkey, has placed itself as a go-between in the most urgent problems facing the Middle East — Palestine and Iran. “Peace in the Middle East holds the key to a peaceful and stable future in the world,” Gul told the UN Millennium Goals Summit — in English. The world now watches to see if their efforts will bear fruit.

    Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-and-russia-defy-america-s-imperial-design-in-the-middle-east-and-central-asia/21273

  • Turkish, Chinese air forces secretly participated in military drill

    Turkish, Chinese air forces secretly participated in military drill

    Turkey conducted war games with China.

    The Turkish and Chinese air forces secretly participated in a military drill in Konya as part of the “Anatolian Eagle” war games, prompting a reaction from Washington, daily Taraf reported Thursday.
    Taraf based its report on Turkish and Western military sources, who confirmed that the military drills took place but did not state the exact dates of the games or what kind of aircraft were involved.
    Washington has requested information on the matter from Turkey, the report added.
    Last year, Ankara excluded Israel from the war games, reportedly because of political tension that arose with Tel Aviv after the Israeli-led war in Gaza in January 2009.
    The Turkish government decided to freeze all military exercises with Israel in response to the killing by Israeli commandos of nine people on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May. Last year, Ankara excluded Tel Aviv from the same exercise, which prompted fellow NATO members the United States and Italy to withdraw from the drills. Turkey had to conduct the exercise on a national instead of an international level.
    Since the early 2000s, Turkey, a NATO member, has conducted war games in the central Anatolian province of Konya with other members of the alliance or non-member friendly nations. But this year was the first time a military drill was conducted with China.
    The US administration reportedly contacted the Turkish foreign and defense ministries and asked why the drill was conducted and what kind of maneuvers were practiced.

    http://news.az/articles/turkey/23775, 01 October 2010

  • The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

    The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

    The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis” Part I


    by Andrew Gavin Marshall Global Research, September 5, 2010

    Introduction

    As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 nears, and the war on terror continues to be waged and grows in ferocity and geography, it seems all the more imperative to return to the events of that fateful September morning and re-examine the reasons for war and the nature of the stated culprit, Al-Qaeda.

    The events of 9/11 pervade the American and indeed the world imagination as an historical myth. The events of that day and those leading up to it remain largely unknown and little understood by the general public, apart from the disturbing images repeated ad nauseam in the media. The facts and troubled truths of that day are lost in the folklore of the 9/11 myth: that the largest attack carried out on American ground was orchestrated by 19 Muslims armed with box cutters and urged on by religious fundamentalism, all under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of a global terrorist network called al-Qaeda, based out of a cave in Afghanistan.

    The myth sweeps aside the facts and complex nature of terror, al-Qaeda, the American empire and literally defies the laws of physics. As John F. Kennedy once said, “The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

    This three-part series on “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda” examines the geopolitical historical origins and nature of what we today know as al-Qaeda, which is in fact an Anglo-American intelligence network of terrorist assets used to advance American and NATO imperial objectives in various regions around the world.

    Part 1 examines the origins of the intelligence network known as the Safari Club, which financed and organized an international conglomerate of terrorists, the CIA’s role in the global drug trade, the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of al-Qaeda.

    The Safari Club

    Following Nixon’s resignation as President, Gerald Ford became the new US President in 1974. Henry Kissinger remained as Secretary of State and Ford brought into his administration two names that would come to play important roles in the future of the American Empire: Donald Rumsfeld as Ford’s Chief of Staff, and Dick Cheney, as Deputy Assistant to the President. The Vice President was Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller’s brother. When Donald Rumsfeld was promoted to Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney was promoted to Chief of Staff. Ford had also appointed a man named George H.W. Bush as CIA Director.

    In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.

    In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA’s need for more discretion, “a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah].”[1] However, “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA,” Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, “transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.”[2]

    As CIA director, George H.W. Bush “cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider.” Adham had previously acted as a “channel between [Henry] Kissinger and [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat” in 1972. In 1976, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia formed the Safari Club “to conduct through their own intelligence agencies operations that were now difficult for the CIA,” which was largely organized by the head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Marenches.[3]

    The “Arc of Crisis” and the Iranian Revolution

    When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to his administration, which was an international think tank formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. Brzezinski had invited Carter to join the Trilateral Commission, and when Carter became President, Brzezinski became National Security Adviser; Cyrus Vance, also a member of the Commission, became Secretary of State; and Samuel Huntington, another Commission member, became Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski. Author and researcher Peter Dale Scott deserves much credit for his comprehensive analysis of the events leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution in his book, “The Road to 9/11”,* which provides much of the information below.

    Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski were to determine the US policy position in the Cold War, and the US-Soviet policy they created was termed, “Cooperation and Competition,” in which Brzezinski would press for “Cooperation” when talking to the press, yet, privately push for “competition.” So, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, Brzezinski was pushing for American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and Vance would come to disagree on almost every issue.[4]

    In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” The Arc of Crisis stretched from Indochina to southern Africa, although, more specifically, the particular area of focus was “the nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa.” Further, the “center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer and for more than two decades a citadel of U.S. military and economic strength in the Middle East. Now it appears that the 37-year reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is almost over, ended by months of rising civil unrest and revolution.”[5]

    With rising discontent in the region, “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.”[6] A month prior to Brzezinski’s speech, in November of 1978, “President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski.” Further, “Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.”[7] George Ball’s visit to Iran was a secret mission.[8]

    Throughout 1978, the Shah was under the impression that “the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime.” In 1978, the Queen and Shah’s wife, told Manouchehr Ganji, a minister in the Shah’s government, that, “I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah,” and she continued saying that she believed “they even want to topple the regime.”[9] The US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, thought that the revolution would succeed, and told this to Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General under the Johnson administration, as well as professor Richard Falk, when they were visiting Sullivan in Iran in 1978. Clark and Falk then went from Iran to Paris, to visit Khomeini, who was there in exile. James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, “a religious movement brought about with the United States’ assistance would be a natural friend of the United States.”[10]

    Also interesting is the fact that the British BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini Persian-language programs daily in Iran, as a subtle form of propaganda, which “gave credibility to the perception of United States and British support of Khomeini.”[11] The BBC refused to give the Shah a platform to respond, and “[r]epeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result.”[12]

    In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, “endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.”[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.

    A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, “The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism.” It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on “containment” of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most “obvious division” within the Middle East is, “that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core,” and that, “After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion.”[15] Ultimately, “the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe.”[16]

    While Khomeini was in Paris prior to the Revolution, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and “current world powers,” in which Khomeini made certain demands, such as, “the shah’s removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d’état by the Iranian Army.” The Western powers, however, “were worried about the Soviet Union’s empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran’s oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.”[17] In February of 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, “with the blessing of Jimmy Carter.”[18] Ayatollah Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on February 4, 1979. As Khomeini had demanded during his Paris meeting in January 1979, that western powers must help in avoiding a coup by the Iranian Army; in that same month, the Carter administration, under the direction of Brzezinski, had begun planning a military coup.[19]

    Could this have been planned in the event that Khomeini was overthrown, the US would quickly reinstate order, perhaps even place Khomeini back in power? Interestingly, in January of 1979, “as the Shah was about to leave the country, the American Deputy Commander in NATO, General Huyser, arrived and over a period of a month conferred constantly with Iranian military leaders. His influence may have been substantial on the military’s decision not to attempt a coup and eventually to yield to the Khomeini forces, especially if press reports are accurate that he or others threatened to withhold military supplies if a coup were attempted.”[20] No coup was subsequently undertaken, and Khomeini came to power as the Ayatollah of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    As tensions increased among the population within Iran, the US sent “security advisers” to Iran to pressure the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) to implement “a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.” The Carter administration also began publicly criticizing the Shah’s human rights abuses.[21] On September 6, 1978, the Shah banned demonstrations, and the following day, between 700 and 2000 demonstrators were gunned down, following “advice from Brzezinski to be firm.”[22]

    The US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, a Trilateral Commission member, said that, “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint,” and the US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure,” while Carter’s adviser, James Bill, said that Khomeini was a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”[23]

    The Shah was also very sick in late 1978 and early 1979. So the Shah fled Iran in January of 1979 to the Bahamas, allowing for the revolution to take place. It is especially interesting to understand the relationship between David Rockefeller and the Shah of Iran. David Rockefeller’s personal assistant, Joseph V. Reed, had been “assigned to handle the shah’s finances and his personal needs;” Robert Armao, who worked for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sent to “act as the shah’s public relations agent and lobbyist;” and Benjamin H. Kean, “a longtime associate of Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller,” and David Rockefeller’s “personal physician,” who was sent to Mexico when the shah was there, and advised that he “be treated at an American hospital.”[24]

    It is important to note that Rockefeller interests “had directed U.S. policy in Iran since the CIA coup of 1953.”[25] Following the Shah’s flight from Iran, there were increased pressures within the United States by a handful of powerful people to have the Shah admitted to the United States. These individuals were Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, former statesman and senior member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, who was also a lawyer for Chase Manhattan, and of course, David Rockefeller.[26]

    Chase Manhattan Bank had more interests in Iran than any other US bank. In fact, the Shah had “ordered that all his government’s major operating accounts be held at Chase and that letters of credit for the purchase of oil be handled exclusively through Chase. The bank also became the agent and lead manager for many of the loans to Iran. In short, Iran became the crown jewel of Chase’s international banking portfolio.”[27]

    The Iranian interim government, headed by Prime Minister Bazargan, collapsed in November of 1979, when Iranian hostages seized the US Embassy in Teheran. However, there is much more to this event than meets the eye. During the time of the interim government (February, 1979 to November, 1979), several actions were undertaken which threatened some very powerful interests who had helped the Ayatollah into power.

    Chase Manhattan Bank faced a liquidity crisis as there had been billions in questionable loans to Iran funneled through Chase.[28] Several of Chase’s loans were “possibly illegal under the Iranian constitution.”[29] Further, in February of 1979, once the interim government was put in power, it began to take “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors.” Also, the interim government “wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher,” which could have “created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles.”[30]

    With the seizure of the American Embassy in Iran, President Carter took moves to freeze Iranian financial assets. As David Rockefeller wrote in his book, “Carter’s ‘freeze’ of official Iranian assets protected our [Chase Manhattan’s] position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it.”[31]

    In February of 1979, Iran had been taking “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors. In 1979, as in 1953, a freeze of Iranian assets made this action more difficult.”[32] This was significant for Chase Manhattan not simply because of the close interlocking of the board with those of oil companies, not to mention Rockefeller himself, who is patriarch of the family whose name is synonymous with oil, but also because Chase exclusively handled all the letters of credit for the purchase of Iranian oil.[33]

    The Shah being accepted into the United States, under public pressure from Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, precipitated the hostage crisis, which occurred on November 4. Ten days later, Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks, on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller. Miller just happened to have ties to Chase Manhattan Bank.[34]

    Although Chase Manhattan directly benefited from the seizure of Iranian assets, the reasoning behind the seizure as well as the events leading up to it, such as a hidden role for the Anglo-Americans behind the Iranian Revolution, bringing the Shah to America, which precipitated the hostage crisis, cannot simply be relegated to personal benefit for Chase. There were larger designs behind this crisis. So the 1979 crises in Iran cannot simply be pawned off as a spur of the moment undertaking, but rather should be seen as quick actions taken upon a perceived opportunity. The opportunity was the rising discontent within Iran at the Shah; the quick actions were in covertly pushing the country into Revolution.

    In 1979, “effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981.”[35] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[36] With the first major oil price rises in 1973 (urged on by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), the Third World was forced to borrow heavily from US and European banks to finance development. With the second oil price shocks of 1979, the US Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker as its new Chairman, (himself having served a career under David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan), dramatically raised interest rates from 2% in the late 70s to 18% in the early 80s. Developing nations could not afford to pay such interest on their loans, and thus the 1980s debt crisis spread throughout the Third World, with the IMF and World Bank coming to the “rescue” with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which ensured western control over the developing world’s economies.[37]

    Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, “the center of the Arc of Crisis,” and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the King of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.

    This was the emergence of the “strategy of tension” in the “Arc of Crisis,” in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of ‘divide and conquer’: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.

    The “Arc of Crisis” in Afghanistan: The Safari Club in Action

    In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to “its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies.”[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as “Communist” and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.

    In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter’s Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:

    According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.[42]

    Brzezinski elaborated, saying he “Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade,” and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.” When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”[43]

    As author Peter Dale Scott pointed out in, The Road to 9/11:*

    For generations in both Afghanistan and the Soviet Muslim Republics the dominant form of Islam had been local and largely Sufi. The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.[44]

    Hafizullah Amin, a top official in Taraki’s government, who many believed to be a CIA asset, orchestrated a coup in September of 1979, and “executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.”[45] The Soviets also intervened in order to replace Amin, who was seen as “unpredictable and extremist” with “the more moderate Barbak Karmal.”[46]

    The Soviet invasion thus prompted the US national security establishment to undertake the largest covert operation in history. When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981, the covert assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen not only continued on the path set by Brzezinski but it rapidly accelerated, as did the overall strategy in the “Arc of Crisis.” When Reagan became President, his Vice President became George H.W. Bush, who, as CIA director during the Ford administration, had helped establish the Safari Club intelligence network and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in Pakistan. In the “campaign to aid the Afghan rebels … BCCI clearly emerged as a U.S. intelligence asset,” and CIA Director “Casey began to use the outside – the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI – to run what they couldn’t get through Congress. [BCCI president] Abedi had the money to help,” and the CIA director had “met repeatedly” with the president of BCCI.[47]

    Thus, in 1981, Director Casey of the CIA worked with Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal who ran the Saudi intelligence agency GID, and the Pakistani ISI “to create a foreign legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called Arab Afghans.” This idea had “originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches.”[48]

    In 1986, the CIA backed a plan by the Pakistani ISI “to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.” Subsequently:

    More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.[49]

    CIA funding for the operations “was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan.”[50] Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is currently Secretary of Defense.

    The Global Drug Trade and the CIA

    As a central facet of the covert financing and training of the Afghan Mujahideen, the role of the drug trade became invaluable. The global drug trade has long been used by empires for fuelling and financing conflict with the aim of facilitating imperial domination.

    In 1773, the British colonial governor in Bengal “established a colonial monopoly on the sale of opium.” As Alfred W. McCoy explained in his masterful book, The Politics of Heroin:

    As the East India Company expanded production, opium became India’s main export. [. . . ] Over the next 130 years, Britain actively promoted the export of Indian opium to China, defying Chinese drug laws and fighting two wars to open China’s opium market for its merchants. Using its military and mercantile power, Britain played a central role in making China a vast drug market and in accelerating opium cultivation throughout China. By 1900 China had 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium.[51]

    In Indochina in the 1940s and 50s, the French intelligence services “enabled the opium trade to survive government suppression efforts,” and subsequently, “CIA activities in Burma helped transform the Shan states from a relatively minor poppy-cultivating area into the largest opium-growing region in the world.”[52] The CIA did this by supporting the Kuomintang (KMT) army in Burma for an invasion of China, and facilitated its monopolization and expansion of the opium trade, allowing the KMT to remain in Burma until a coup in 1961, when they were driven into Laos and Thailand.[53] The CIA subsequently played a very large role in the facilitation of the drugs trade in Laos and Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.[54]

    It was during the 1980s that “the CIA’s covert war in Afghanistan transformed Central Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market,” as:

    Until the late 1970s, tribal farmers in the highlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan grew limited quantities of opium and sold it to merchant caravans bound west for Iran and east to India. In its decade of covert warfare against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA’s operations provided the political protection and logistics linkages that joined Afghanistan’s poppy fields to heroin markets in Europe and America.[55]

    In 1977, General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan launched a military coup, “imposed a harsh martial-law regime,” and executed former President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father to Benazir Bhutto). When Zia came to power, the Pakistani ISI was a “minor military intelligence unit,” but, under the “advice and assistance of the CIA,” General Zia transformed the ISI “into a powerful covert unit and made it the strong arm of his martial-law regime.”[56]

    The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would “consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program,” and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]

    In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI “offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,” who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA’s aid went to Hekmatyar’s guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan’s leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a “complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan).”[59]

    The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America’s heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin “protected by ISI papers from police search.”[61]

    Haq, the CIA asset in Pakistan, “was also running the drug trade,” of which the bank BCCI “was completely involved.” In the 1980s, the CIA insisted that the ISI create “a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions.” Elaborating:

    This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts.[62]

    This plan apparently originated at the suggestion of French intelligence chief and founder of the Safari Club, Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended it to CIA Director Casey.[63]

    In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in “non-lethal” aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: “The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program,” and “The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks.”[64]

    The textbooks were “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings,” and “were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.” Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks “have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books.” The books were developed through a USAID grant to the “University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies,” and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, “Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines.” USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]

    The Rise of the Taliban

    When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.

    In the early 1990s, an obscure group of “Pashtun country folk” had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban “surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords.” As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]

    The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and “became more and more of a direct military alliance.” The Taliban ultimately became “an asset of the ISI” and “a client of the Pakistan army.”[68] Further, “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western.”[69]

    Selig Harrison, a scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and “a leading US expert on South Asia,” said at a conference in India that the CIA worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. Harrison has “extensive contact” with the CIA, as “he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan,” while he was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As he further revealed in 2001, “The CIA still has close links with the ISI.”[70] By 1996, the Taliban had control of Kandahar, but still fighting and instability continued in the country.

    Osama and Al-Qaeda

    Between 1980 and 1989, roughly $600 million was passed through Osama bin Laden’s charity front organizations, specifically the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah. The money mostly originated with wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other areas in the Persian Gulf, and was funneled through his charity fronts to arm and fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan.[71]

    In the 1980s, the British Special Forces (SAS) were training mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as in secret camps in Scotland, and the SAS is largely taking orders from the CIA. The CIA also indirectly begins to arm Osama bin Laden.[72] Osama bin Laden’s front charity, the MAK, “was nurtured” by the Pakistani ISI.[73]

    Osama bin Laden was reported to have been personally recruited by the CIA in 1979 in Istanbul. He had the close support of Prince Turki bin Faisal, his friend and head of Saudi intelligence, and also developed ties with Hekmatyar in Afghanistan,[74] both of whom were pivotal figures in the CIA-Safari Club network. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, the head of the Pakistani ISI from 1980 to 1987, would meet regularly with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and they formed a partnership in demanding a tax on the opium trade from warlords so that by 1985, bin Laden and the ISI were splitting the profits of over $100 million per year.[75] In 1985, Osama bin Laden’s brother, Salem, stated that Osama was “the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels.”[76]

    In 1988, Bin Laden discussed “the establishment of a new military group,” which would come to be known as Al-Qaeda.[77] Osama bin Laden’s charity front, the MAK, (eventually to form Al-Qaeda) founded the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, New York, to recruit Muslims for the jihad against the Soviets. The al-Kifah Center was founded in the late 1980s with the support of the U.S. government, which provided visas for known terrorists associated with the organization, including Ali Mohamed, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman and possibly the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.[78]

    This coincided with the creation of Al-Qaeda, of which the al-Kifah Center was a recruiting front. Foot soldiers for Al-Qaeda were “admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program.” The FBI had been surveilling the training of terrorists, however, “it terminated this surveillance in the fall of 1989.” In 1990, the CIA granted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a visa to come run the al-Kifah Center, who was considered an “untouchable” as he was “being protected by no fewer than three agencies,” including the State Department, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.[79]

    Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, “literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”[80] Thus, “Al-Qaeda” was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, “In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database,” and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, “Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property,” and further:

    The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ’devil’ only in order to drive the ’TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]

    The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this “database” of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the ‘new world order’.

    Part 2 of “The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda” takes the reader through an examination of the new imperial strategy laid out by American geopolitical strategists at the end of the Cold War, designed for America to maintain control over the world’s resources and prevent the rise of competitive powers. Covertly, the “database” (al-Qaeda) became central to this process, being used to advance imperial aims in various regions, such as in the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Part 2 further examines the exact nature of ‘al-Qaeda’, its origins, terms, training, arming, financing, and expansion. In particular, the roles of western intelligence agencies in the evolution and expansion of al-Qaeda is a central focus. Finally, an analysis of the preparations for the war in Afghanistan is undertaken to shed light on the geopolitical ambitions behind the conflict that has now been waging for nearly nine years.

    * [Note on the research: For a comprehensive analysis of the history, origins and nature of al-Qaeda, see: Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America, which provided much of the research in the above article.]

    Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” available to order at Globalresearch.ca.

    Notes

    [1] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 62

    [2] Ibid, page 63.

    [3] Ibid, page 62.

    [4] Ibid, pages 66-67.

    [5] HP-Time, The Crescent of Crisis. Time Magazine: January 15, 1979:

    [6] Peter Dale Scott, op. cit., page 67.

    [7] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 171

    [8] Manouchehr Ganji, Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 41

    [9] Ibid, page 39.

    [10] Ibid, page 41.

    [11] Ibid.

    [12] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 172

    [13] Ibid, page 171.

    [14] George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It’s Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 796

    [15] Ibid, page 797.

    [16] Ibid, page 798.

    [17] IPS, Q&A: Iran’s Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing. Inter-Press Service: July 26, 2008: 

    [18] Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:

    [19] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 89.

    [20] George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It’s Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 810

    [21] F. William Engdahl, op cit., page 172.

    [22] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 81.

    [23] Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007: 

    [24] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 83.

    [25] Ibid, page 84.

    [26] Ibid, page 81.

    [27] Ibid, pages 85-86.

    [28] Ibid.

    [29] Ibid, page 87.

    [30] Ibid, pages 88-89.

    [31] Ibid.

    [32] Ibid, pages 87-88.

    [33] Ibid, page 85.

    [34] Ibid, page 86.

    [35] Ibid, page 88.

    [36] F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 173

    [37] Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009: https://www.globalresearch.ca/controlling-the-global-economy-bilderberg-the-trilateral-commission-and-the-federal-reserve/14614

    [38] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 89

    [39] PBS, Secrets of His Life and Leadership: An Interview with Said K. Aburish. PBS Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

    [40] Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008: https://www.globalresearch.ca/afghanistan-another-untold-story/11279

    [41] Oleg Kalugin, How We Invaded Afghanistan. Foreign Policy: December 11, 2009:

    [42] ‘’Le Nouvel Observateur’ (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76: http://www.ucc.ie/acad/appsoc/tmp_store/mia/Library/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm

    [43] Ibid.

    [44] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

    [45] Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008: https://www.globalresearch.ca/afghanistan-another-untold-story/11279

    [46] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 78.

    [47] Ibid, page 116.

    [48] Ibid, page 122.

    [49] Ibid, page 123.

    [50] Ibid,.

    [51] Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. (Lawrence Hill Books: Chicago, 2003), page 80

    [52] Ibid, page 162.

    [53] Ibid.

    [54] Ibid, pages 283-386.

    [55] Ibid, page 466.

    [56] Ibid, page 474.

    [57] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

    [58] Alfred W. McCoy, op cit., page 475.

    [59] Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 74.

    [60] Ibid, pages 75-76.

    [61] Ibid, page 124.

    [62] Ibid, pages 75-76.

    [63] Ibid, page 124.

    [64] Carol Off, Back to school in Afghanistan. CBC: May 6, 2002:

    [65] Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad. The Washington Post: March 23, 2002:

    [66] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Books, New York, 2004: Page 328

    [67] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 11, 2001. (London: Penguin, 2005), page 285

    [68] Steve Coll, “Steve Coll” Interview with PBS Frontline. PBS Frontline: October 3, 2006: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/interviews/coll.html

    [69] Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), page 326

    [70] ToI, “CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban”. The Times of India: March 7, 2001: http://www.multiline.com.au/ johnm/taliban.htm

    [71] Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), pages 279-280

    [72] Simon Reeve, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism. (London: André Deutsch Ltd, 1999), page 168

    [73] Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost. MSNBC: August 24, 1998:

    [74] Veronique Maurus and Marc Rock, The Most Dreaded Man of the United States, Controlled a Long Time by the CIA. Le Monde Diplomatique: September 14, 2001: http://www.wanttoknow.info/010914lemonde

    [75] Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. (New York: Random House, 2003), page 29

    [76] Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens. (New York: Penguin, 2008), pages 7-9

    [77] AP, Al Qaeda Financing Documents Turn Up in Bosnia Raid. Fox News: February 19, 2003:

    [78] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 140-141

    [79] Ibid, page 141.

    [80] Robin Cook, The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means. The Guardian: July 8, 2005: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

    [81] Pierre-Henri Bunel, Al Qaeda — the Database. Global Research: November 20, 2005: https://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-the-database-2/24738

    T

    Bella Ciao

  • CYPRUS (TRNC) : Another Anti-Turkish Bill PASSED House Of Represantatives

    CYPRUS (TRNC) : Another Anti-Turkish Bill PASSED House Of Represantatives

    Oldu bitti rezaleti. The Bill passed the House

    Bill Text Versions

    111th Congress (2009-2010)

    H.RES.1631

    There are 2 versions of Bill Number H.RES.1631 for the 111th Congress.

    Usually, the last item is the most recent.

    1 . Calling for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from

    and in Turkish-occupied areas of northern Cyprus as well as for

    general respect for religious freedom. (Introduced in House –

    IH)[H.RES.1631.IH][PDF]

    2 . Whereas the Government of Turkey invaded the northern area of the

    Republic of Cyprus on July 20, 1974, and the Turkish military

    continues to illegally occupy the territory to this day; (Engrossed in

    House [Passed House] – EH)[H.RES.1631.EH][PDF]

    ———————————————————————

    H.RES.1631 — Whereas the Government of Turkey invaded the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus on July 20, 1974, and the Turkish military continues to illegally occupy the territory to this day; (Engrossed in House [Passed House] – EH)

    HRES 1631 EH

    H. Res. 1631

    In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

    September 28, 2010.
    Whereas the Government of Turkey invaded the northern area of the Republic of Cyprus on July 20, 1974, and the Turkish military continues to illegally occupy the territory to this day;

    Whereas the Church of Cyprus has filed an application against Turkey with the European Court of Human Rights for violations of freedom of religion and association as Greek Cypriots in the occupied areas are unable to worship freely due to the restricted access to religious sites and continued destruction of the property of the Church of Cyprus;

    Whereas according to the United Nations-brokered Vienna III Agreement of August 2, 1975, `Greek-Cypriots in the north of the island are free to stay and they will be given every help to lead a normal life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion * * *’;

    Whereas according to the Secretary General’s Report on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus in June 1996, the Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the northern part of the island `were subjected to severe restrictions and limitations in many basic freedoms, which had the effect of ensuring that inexorably, with the passage of time, the communities would cease to exist.’;

    Whereas the very future and existence of historic Greek Cypriot, Maronite, and Armenian communities are now in grave danger of extinction;

    Whereas the Abbot of the Monastery of the Apostle Barnabas is routinely denied permission to hold services or reside in the monastery of the founder of the Church of Cyprus and the Bishop of Karpass has been refused permission to perform the Easter Service for the few enclaved people in his occupied diocese;

    Whereas there are only two priests serving the religious needs of the enclaved in the Karpas peninsula, Armenians are not allowed access to any of their religious sites or income generating property, and Maronites are unable to celebrate the mass daily in many churches;

    Whereas in the past Muslim Alevis were forced out of their place of prayer and until recently were denied the right to build a new place of worship;

    Whereas under the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, religious sites have been systematically destroyed and a large number of religious and archaeological objects illegally looted, exported, and subsequently sold or traded in international art markets, including an estimated 16,000 icons, mosaics, and mural decorations stripped from most of the churches, and 60,000 archaeological items dating from the 6th to 20th centuries;

    Whereas at a hearing held on July 21, 2009, entitled `Cyprus’
    Religious Cultural Heritage in Peril’ by the U.S. Helsinki Commission, Michael Jansen provided testimony detailing first-hand accounts of Turkish soldiers throwing icons from looted churches onto burning pyres during the Turkish invasion and provided testimonies of how churches were left open to both looters and vandals with nothing done to secure the religious sites by the Turkish forces occupying northern Cyprus;

    Whereas Dr. Charalampos G. Chotzakakoglou also provided testimony to the U.S. Helsinki Commission that around 500 churches, monasteries, cemeteries, and other religious sites have been desecrated, pillaged, looted, and destroyed, including one Jewish cemetery;

    Whereas 80 Christian churches have been converted into mosques, 28 are being used by the Turkish army as stores and barracks, 6 have been turned into museums, and many others are used for other nonreligious purposes such as coffee shops, hotels, public baths, nightclubs, stables, cultural centers, theaters, barns, workshops, and one is even used as a mortuary;

    Whereas expert reports indicate that since 2004 several churches have been leveled, such as St. Catherine Church in Gerani which was bulldozed in mid-2008, the northern wall of the Chapel of St.
    Euphemianos in Lysi which was destroyed by looters as they removed all metal objects within the wall, the Church of the Holy Virgin in the site of Trachonas was used as a dancing school until the Turkish occupiers built a road that destroyed part of it in March 2010, the Church of the Templars was converted into a night club, and the Church of Panagia Trapeza in Acheritou village was used as a sheep stall before it was recently destroyed by looters removing metal objects from medieval graves within the church;

    Whereas the Republic of Cyprus discovered iron-inscribed crosses stolen from Greek cemeteries in the north in trucks owned by a Turkish-Cypriot firm that intended to send them to India to be recycled;

    Whereas United States art dealer Peggy Goldberg was found culpable for illegally marketing 6th century mosaics from the Panagia Kanakaria church because the judge found that a `thief obtains no title or right of possession of stolen items’ and therefore `a thief cannot pass any right of ownership * * * to subsequent purchasers.’;

    Whereas the extent of the illicit trade of religious artifacts from the churches in the Turkish occupied areas of northern Cyprus by Turkish black market dealer Aydin Dikmen was exposed following a search of his property by the Bavarian central department of crime which confiscated Byzantine mosaics, frescoes, and icons valued at over =30 million;

    Whereas a report prepared by the Law Library of Congress on the `Destruction of Cultural Property in the Northern Part of Cyprus and Violations of International Law’ for the U.S. Helsinki Commission details what obligations the Government of Turkey has as the occupying power in northern Cyprus for the destruction of religious and cultural property there under international law;

    Whereas the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property During Armed Conflict, of which Turkey is a party, states in article 4(3) that the occupying power undertakes to `Prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of any acts of vandalism directed against cultural property’;

    Whereas according to the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership which has been ratified by Cyprus and Turkey, parties are required to take steps to prevent illicit traffic through the adoption of legal and administrative measures and the adoption of an export certificate for any cultural object that is exported, and `illicit’
    refers to any export or transfer of ownership of cultural property under compulsion that arises from the occupation of a country by a foreign power;

    Whereas according to the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey of May 10, 2001, Turkey was responsible for continuing human rights abuses under the European Convention on Human Rights throughout its 27-year military occupation of northern Cyprus, including restricting freedom of movement for Greek Cypriots and limiting access to their places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;

    Whereas the European Court further ruled that Turkey’s responsibility covers the acts of soldiers and subordinate local administrators because the occupying Turkish forces have effective control of the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus;

    Whereas in March 2008, President Christofias and former Turkish Cypriot leader Talat agreed to the setting up of a `Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage’ with a mandate to engage in `serious work’ to protect the varied cultural heritage of the entire island;

    Whereas this Committee was developing a list of all cultural heritage sites on the island to create an educational interactive program for the island’s youth to understand the shared heritage and to undertake a joint effort to restore the Archangel Michael Church and the Arnvut Mosque;

    Whereas while significant work was done on the Arnvut Mosque, the Archangel Michael Church remains in disrepair; and

    Whereas, on July 16, 2002, and again in 2007, the United States and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus signed a Memorandum of Understanding to impose import restrictions on categories of Pre-Classical and Classical archaeological objects, as well as Byzantine period ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials, from Cyprus: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
    (1) expresses appreciation for the efforts of those countries that have restored religious property wrongly confiscated during the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus;
    (2) welcomes the efforts of many countries to address the complex and difficult question of the status of illegally confiscated religious art and artifacts, and urges those countries to continue to ensure that these items are restored to the Republic of Cyprus in a timely, just manner;
    (3) welcomes the initiatives and commitment of the Republic of Cyprus to work to restore and maintain religious heritage sites;
    (4) urges the Government of Turkey to–
    (A) immediately implement the United Nations Security Council Resolutions relevant to Cyprus as well as the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights;
    (B) work to retrieve and restore all lost artifacts and immediately halt destruction on religious sites, illegal archaeological excavations, and traffic in icons and antiquities; and
    (C) allow for the proper preservation and reconstruction of destroyed or altered religious sites and immediately cease all restrictions on freedom of religion for the enclaved Cypriots;
    (5) calls on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to investigate and make recommendations on violations of religious freedom in the areas of northern Cyprus under control of the Turkish military;
    (6) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to include information in the annual International Religious Freedom and Human Rights reports on Cyprus that detail the violations of religious freedom and humanitarian law including the continuous destruction of property, lack of justice in restitution, and restrictions on access to holy sites and the ability of the enclaved to freely practice their faith;
    (7) calls on the State Department Office of International Religious Freedom to address the concerns and actions called for in this resolution with the Government of Turkey, OSCE, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and other international bodies or foreign governments;
    (8) urges OSCE to ensure that member states do not receive stolen Cypriot art and antiquities; and
    (9) urges OSCE to press the Government of Turkey to abide by its international commitments by calling on it to work to retrieve and restore all lost artifacts, to immediately halt destruction on religious sites, illegal archaeological excavations, and traffic in icons and antiquities, to allow for the proper preservation and reconstruction of destroyed or altered religious sites, and to immediately cease all restrictions on freedom of religion for the enclaved Cypriots.

  • Europe Plots Show al-Qaida ‘Escalation’ to Assault-Style Attacks

    Europe Plots Show al-Qaida ‘Escalation’ to Assault-Style Attacks

    By: David A. Patten

    Intelligence experts warned Wednesday that the massive terror plot involving simultaneous assault-style attacks in London, Paris, and Germany represents a serious escalation in al-Qaida’s war with the West, and poses a clear and present danger to the United States.

    European counterterrorism officials are describing the plan of attack as being modeled on the November 2008 assault in Mumbai, India. In that attack, several teams fanned out across the city and used explosives and automatic weapons to kill over 170 people.

    Der Spiegel is reporting a 36-year-old Hamburg man who was arrested in Kabul in July provided authorities with intelligence about a series of attacks planned for Germany and neighboring European countries. He stated several teams of attackers bearing European passports had received training in remote Waziristan and Pakistan.

    The plot is believed related to heightened security around the Eiffel Tower, which has been closed to tourists twice in the past week.

    “It’s completely certain that at some point, something like that will happen here,” Michael Scheuer, former CIA counterterrorism expert who headed the unit assigned to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. “It’s not only because you have increasing numbers of young Muslim males who are U.S. citizens who want to act violently, but we have completely neutered our police forces because they have 12 million undocumented aliens that they have to worry about, and they don’t know a thing about them.

    “So it’s a huge problem,” Scheuer says, “and not an easy one by any means.”

    ForeignPolicy.com reported the plot disrupted Tuesday involved “simultaneous Mumbai-style attacks — with coordinated attackers taking hostages, using guns and grenades — on cities in the U.K., France, and Germany.”

    Author Steve Emerson, one of the nation’s leading experts on terror, and the executive director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, tells Newsmax that if al-Qaida is shown to be behind the series of attacks that were planned in Europe, “It would represent an escalation, as well as of course an expansion and diversification of their tactics, considering the success achieved in Mumbai.”

    Several sources say the plot to attack Europe recently shifted into an operational stage in Pakistan. The CIA has conducted a record number of drone strikes in Pakistan in the past month in an apparent bid to disrupt the attackers.

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would not address specific threats but told Fox News Wednesday, “We are working constantly to make sure the American people are safe, and that includes plots against soft targets like hotels.”

    “We certainly have to be on the lookout for Mumbai-style attacks with bombs or assault rifles, at simultaneous institutions or commercial facilities in the United States,” Emerson tells Newsmax. “That certainly could be pulled off.”

    The Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. counterterrorism officials are working urgently to determine if the European plots also involve an immediate threat to the United States.

    “You have folks increasingly concerned about: Is it not just Europe that needs to be careful, but is there a threat here as well?” one U.S. counterterrorism official told the Journal.

    Intelligence sources are saying it has been years since a plot on the scale of the European assault has been uncovered.

    “This isn’t just your typical Washington talk about how the threats have evolved,” a counterterrorism official told the Journal. “People are very concerned about what they’re seeing.”

    In some ways, experts say, the latest plot suggests terrorists learned from the relatively simple, brutally effective assault carried out in Mumbai.

    Experts continue to believe al-Qaida’s chief objective is to carry out an attack on American soil using weapons of mass destruction. But the apparent shift to simultaneous assaults with explosives and automatic weapons, presumably targeting “soft targets” such as hotels, tourist attractions, and mass transportation hubs, shows the organization is also interested in attacks that aren’t as lethal, but can be much more difficult to detect.

    Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 prosecution of “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman, points out the 9/11 attacks took over 18 months to carry out.

    “An armed assault, while it’s not likely to result in the same number of casualties, is easier in the United States to train for. There are lots of remote areas to train in. The training curve is not as high to get someone ready to carry out an attack like that,” he says.

    McCarthy also tells Newsmax: “Even if the attackers are not particularly competent, we saw in Fort Hood that one guy shooting a high-powered weapon in kind of a haphazard fashion can still kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.”

    Kent Clizbe, a former CIA counterterrorism operative, agrees with McCarthy that one reason terrorists may be shifting their tactics to armed assaults is that larger plots have proven too difficult.

    “I think the only thing that’s surprising is that they have not done it here yet,” he says. “You look at the relative ease with which you can acquire firearms. You can buy a semi-automatic AK-47 pretty easily here.”

    Clizbe adds that it may be no coincidence the plot occurs as the Iraq war winds down. That conflict, he says, acted like “fly paper” to keep many violent extremists occupied in the Middle East.

    “We have a supply and demand problem,” Clizbe says. “You have supply building up and up, and they want to do an attack. So the further and further away we get in time from the Iraq war, the more supply of jihadis there is.”

    Mark Lowenthal, former CIA assistant director and president of Intelligence & Security Academy, a national security training and consulting firm, tells Newsmax that the nature of the thwarted European attacks may actually indicate progress in the war on terror.

    “We’re driving these guys to smaller, less coordinated, less catastrophic action,” he says. “That doesn’t mean it’s over. But it shows we’re making their lives more operationally difficult.

    “It also means that the intelligence problem becomes more difficult. But clearly at this point the intelligence is working, or you wouldn’t have all these warnings.”

    Fred Burton, the vice president of intelligence for the STRATFOR intelligence group in Austin, Texas, agrees wholeheartedly.

    “It’s our assessment that al-Qaida no longer poses a strategic threat to the United States,” he tells Newsmax. “Now that doesn’t mean that they still can’t kill. But if you look at their target sets, and if you look at the series of attacks that we’ve had in the United States — such as the Little Rock National Guard shooter, Major Hasan at Fort Hood, the attempt to blow up the airplane on the inbound flight into Detroit — you’ve got very isolated lone-wolf operations that are clearly jihadi inspired. But you’re not going to be able to carry out that kind of WMD attack on U.S. soil.”