It will be one of the biggest international summit meetings to be held in Germany in recent years: further support for Ukraine will be discussed in Ramstein on 12 October. 

Berlin (dpa) - A Ukraine summit with US President Joe Biden will be held at the US Ramstein Air Base in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate on 12 October. Around 50 NAOTO member states and other Ukraine allies are expected to take part, in some cases at head of state and government level. The aim is to coordinate military support for Ukraine among its allies. Biden will be in Berlin ahead of the summit from 10 to 12 October, where he will meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. This will be Biden’s first bilateral visit to Germany during his nearly four-year term in office. 

https://www.deutschland.de/en/news/ukraine-summit-with-biden-in-ramstein

THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING SHOULD BE (BUT UNLIKELY TO BE):

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

Brian Berletic

Since October 7, 2023, it seems that a chain of spontaneous events is leading the Middle East deeper and deeper into conflict. From Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza to its strikes against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and its repeated strikes across Syria (including the recent strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus), to the ongoing US-led confrontation with Yemen in the Red Sea, it seems that poor diplomacy is failing to prevent escalation and is instead leading to rising tensions and the growing potential for broader war.

In reality, almost word for word, US-Israeli diplomacy (or lack thereof) and military operations follow a carefully defined policy outlined in the pages of the study from the Brooking Institution in 2009 entitled “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New U.S. Strategy Toward Iran».

The Brookings Institution is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. funded by both the US government and military, as well as the largest Western financial groups. Its board of directors and experts are among the most prominent figures in American foreign policy and political circles. The documents published by the institution are far from being speculation or commentary, but rather reflect a consensus on the direction of American foreign policy.

Its 2009 report is no exception.

Those who read its 170 pages in 2009 must have learned of ongoing or future plans to overthrow or contain the Iranian government.

There are entire chapters devoted to “diplomatic options” that lay out plans to appear to engage Iran in a deal over its nuclear program, unilaterally abandon the plan, and then use its failure as a pretext to exert more pressure on the Iranian government and economy (Chapter 2: Tempting Tehran: The Engagement Option).

Some chapters detail the methods used to create unrest in Iran, both by using U.S. government-funded opposition groups (Chapter 6: The Velvet Revolution: Supporting a Popular Uprising) and even by supporting foreign terrorist organizations listed by the U.S. State Department such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) (Chapter 7: Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iran's Minority and Opposition Groups).

Other chapters detail a direct American invasion (Chapter 3: Going All the Way: Invasion) and a smaller-scale air campaign (Chapter 4: The Osiraq Option: Airstrikes).

Finally, an entire chapter is devoted to using Israel to start a war that the United States might then appear reluctant to engage in (Chapter 5: Laissez Faire Bibi: Authorizing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike). Since 2009, each of these options has been tried (sometimes repeatedly) or is being implemented.

The Iran nuclear deal, signed under the administration of US President Barack Obama, unilaterally abandoned under the administration of US President Donald Trump, and attempts to revive it blocked under the administration of US President Joe Biden, illustrate not only the fidelity of US foreign policy to the content of the document, but also the continuity of this policy regardless of who sat in the White House or controlled the US Congress.

Today, one of the most dangerous options explored appears to be in full swing, with the United States and Israel deliberately creating an environment conducive to war in the Middle East and repeatedly provoking Iran to start it.

The Brookings Institution highlights several points.

First, Iran is not interested in war with the United States or Israel.

Second, the United States must work hard to convince the world that it was Iran, not Washington, that provoked a war that the United States wanted.

Third, even in the event of repeated provocation, Iran is highly likely not to retaliate, thereby depriving the United States and/or Israel of a pretext for a broader war.

The report notes:

«…it would be much better if the United States could invoke an Iranian provocation to justify the airstrikes before launching them. It is clear that the more outrageous, deadly and unjustified the Iranian action, the better off the United States will be. Of course, it would be very difficult for them to incite Iran to such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would weaken it.».

It continues:

«One method that would have some chance of success would be to intensify covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate openly, or even semi-openly, which could then be presented as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.».

The newspaper admits that the United States is seeking to start a war against Iran, but wants to convince the world that it is Iran itself that is provoking this war.

The document lays out the framework for a deceptive diplomacy that Washington could adopt with Tehran to reinforce the illusion that Iran will be responsible for any war between it and the United States (or Israel):

«Similarly, any military operation against Iran is likely to be very unpopular internationally and will require an appropriate international context, both to ensure the necessary logistical support for the operation and to minimize the fallout. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (even if reluctant or covert) is to strike only when there is a general belief that the Iranians have received and rejected a superb offer—an offer so attractive that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and to acquire them for the wrong reasons would refuse it.

In these circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could present its actions as a form of sadness, not anger, and at least part of the international community would conclude that the Iranians "brought it upon themselves" by refusing a very good deal.».

Israel plays a key role in this strategy.

As Washington seeks to distance itself from Israeli brutality in its operations in Gaza and its recent attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, such provocations are at the heart of Washington's desire to draw Iran into a war that it admits Tehran does not want.

The 2009 report anticipates that Israeli strikes against Iran could "trigger a wider conflict between Israel and Iran that could involve the United States and other countries».

In reality, Israel’s brutality in its operations in Gaza and its recent strike on the Iranian embassy are entirely made possible by the political, diplomatic and military assistance of the United States. The United States not only gives Israel the military means to carry out this violence, but it uses its position within the United Nations to grant it impunity, as illustrated in the article in The Washington Post of April 4, 2024, “US Approves New Bombs for Israel on Day of World Central Kitchen Strikes».

Many analysts seem surprised by Washington’s paradoxical behavior, ready to believe that the current Biden administration is simply incompetent and incapable of reining in its Israeli allies. However, given the central role that these blatant provocations play in achieving the stated goals of US foreign policy against Iran, this should not be surprising at all.

All that remains is to get Iranian retaliation or an incident that the United States and Israel can convince the world is Iranian retaliation.

Iran has been subjected to provocations from the United States and Israel for decades. Perhaps the most blatant provocation in recent years, before the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, was the US assassination of senior Iranian official Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. If Iran has responded, it has done so in a measured manner.

The attack on the Iranian embassy on April 1, 2024, was intended to surpass the scale of the 2020 assassination, in the hope of putting irresistible pressure on Tehran to finally overreact, particularly given Iran’s strategic patience in the past. It may also be about convincing the world that irresistible pressure was being put on Iran to make an orchestrated attack blamed on Iran more credible.

The 2009 Brookings study, "Which way to Persia?", clearly stated the problem:

«It is not inevitable that Iran will retaliate violently to a US air campaign, but no US president should assume that it will not. Iran has not always retaliated to US attacks against it. Initially, after the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988, many believed that it was Iranian retaliation for the downing of Iran Air Flight 455 by the US cruiser USS Vincennes in July of that year. However, today, all indications are that Libya was the culprit in that terrorist attack, which, if true, suggests that Iran never retaliated for its loss. Nor did Iran retaliate for the US Operation Praying Mantis, which in 1988 resulted in the sinking of most of Iran’s major warships. Therefore, it is possible that Iran will simply choose to play the victim in the event of a US attack, assuming (probably correctly) that this would earn it considerable sympathy, both domestically and internationally.».

Washington has tried to convince the world that it fears an escalation between Israel and Iran. Newsweek, in his articleof April 4, 2024 entitled “White House 'very concerned' about prospect of war between Israel and Iran", even quotes White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, who said: "No one wants to see this conflict escalate.».

Despite Washington's statements, its actions demonstrate a willingness to escalate. The 2009 Brookings report admits that even a "retaliation"semi-open"Iran's attack could be used as a pretext, raising concerns that the United States and Israel could cite any attack, regardless of which party is responsible, and pin the blame on Iran to justify further escalation.

In many ways, the United States and Israel have already tried to do this with the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, while admitting that there is no evidence of Iranian involvement.

Iran’s strategic patience has paid off. By avoiding open war with the United States or Israel, Iran and its allies have been able to slowly but surely reshape the region. Iran has done this by circumventing U.S. sanctions. It has also bridged the artificial divisions that the United States has cultivated since the end of World War II to divide and rule the Middle East. This includes repairing its own relations with Saudi Arabia and restoring ties between its Syrian ally and Washington’s allies in the Persian Gulf.

As the region reshapes, the United States’ dominance over it is diminishing. Washington’s list of proxies is shrinking. Those that remain are becoming increasingly isolated. And with each passing year, Washington’s military power in the region is becoming more fragile. Iran, if it continues on its path to success, will inevitably prevail over American interference along and within its borders.

The only chance for the United States to regain control of the region and advance its regime change policy toward Iran is to provoke a full-scale war, in which the United States (and/or Israel) could use direct military force to accomplish what decades of sanctions and subversion have failed to do.

Sooner or later, the window of opportunity to achieve this will close, for both the United States and Israel, as Iran and the rest of the multipolar world continue to grow and the United States and its proxies continue to find themselves increasingly isolated.

As the United States has revealed in Europe about its proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, this rapidly closing window of opportunity has unleashed a dangerous desperation in Washington.

Only time will tell to what extent this desperation influences American foreign policy in the Middle East and the actions of its proxies, particularly Israel. Washington’s other proxy, Ukraine, has resorted to desperate measures ranging from extraterritorial terrorism to strikes on the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in a dangerous attempt to reverse the situation. Israel actually possesses nuclear weapons, which makes Washington’s desperation in the Middle East all the more dangerous.

source: New Eastern Outlook

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

SEE ALSO: