PURIM THE PLOT TO KILL THE PERSIAN

KING

( Somehow this Clyde Lewis article from circa 2011/2012, seemed pertinent because of the current events developing in Iran.)

http://www.groundzeromedia.org/purim-the-plot-to-kill-the-persian-king/

ClydeLewis

There are many things that happen in cycles and sometimes those cycles have a wider revolution. As I was exploring the Trinity numeric synchronicities of the triple threat 333 , I couldn’t help but feel that my audience was not completely aware of what I was leading up to. When using paranormal methods to pinpoint dates with destiny you sometime “free form” your thoughts and at times it can be daunting.

I am certain that we are seeing a revolution or cycle where numbers and symbols are appearing at a rapid rate. The 33 for the King Kill is becoming clearer. It cannot be written off and if you do not want to follow you may miss out on capturing dates and times to prepare for the new war. In the book “The Secret of the Illuminati we read:

Thirty-three appears to be the most mysterious of numbers. It is found over and over again in the stories of the Bible and elsewhere. Jesus Christ was thirty-three when he was crucified; the first temple of Solomon stood for thirty-three years before being pillaged by King Shishak of Egypt; there are thirty-three symbols of the Masonic Order and one of their symbols depicts a double-headed eagle crowned with an equilateral triangle: inside of this is the number thirty-three.

Keep in mind that Jesus was crucified when he was 33 and then rose from the dead on the 3rd day. Jesus was known as the “divine king” and was put to death in order to pay for the sins or failures of his people. He needed to be sacrificed in order to “change” or resurrect into a perfect body.

However, there are now new revelations that put the divinity of Christ into question. Some 2000 years after the killing of the divine king his divinity is now under scrutiny as a bible or sacred text was unearthed in Turkey stating that while Christ really existed he never declared he was the messiah.

A secret 1,500-year-old Bible has been unveiled in Turkey in which Jesus is believed to predict coming of Prophet Muhammad to Earth. The book has sparked interest from the Vatican so that Pope Benedict XVI has requested to observe the book which was hidden in Turkey for the last 12 years.

The leather-bound text, written on animal hide, was discovered by Turkish police during an anti-smuggling operation in the year 2000.

Penned in Jesus’ native Aramaic language, the newly discovered bible features handwritten gold lettered script. Muslims believe the text, which many believe to be the Gospel of Barnabas, is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. St. Barnabas was an early Christian and is traditionally identified as the founder of the Cypriot Church. The text, reportedly worth $22 million, is said to contain Jesus’ prediction of the Prophet’ Mohammed’s coming but was suppressed by the Christian Church for years for its strong resemblance to the Islamic view of Jesus.

Of course Protestants have a critical view on this book. The Bible contrary to popular belief is not complete and several books have been excised from the original bible. Many believe that the Bible has all of God’s word. That is only mentioned as a traditional view of the bible, The reality is that any books have been removed from the bible and many esoteric truths are taken out only to be rediscovered and used in secret societies to understand the power and mysteries of God.

This is why and how these societies are formed. They know the secrets that are no longer in the “word” of God and many celebrations, mystical numeric signatures and signs are no longer seen by Christians as holy markers. They are now seen as either satanic sigil for use in spiritual warfare. Numeric signatures like 333 or 33 are representations of occult alchemy. From birth, death and resurrection or change man can achieve the key to the kingdom of God. The number 33 represents the journey of death and the rebirth.

In the book Isis Unveiled Madam Blavatsky had drawn a crude example of the Solomon’s signet key; She used the hexagram and paired the triangles as a value of 3 sides for each triangle 33.

Many people today associate the symbol with Israel; however the symbol is a powerful symbol in magical circles. Victorian Magician John Dee once wrote of the symbol: “The double triangle viewed by the Jewish Kabbalists as Solomon’s Seal is…according to occultists a geometrical synthesis of the whole occult doctrine. The two interlaced triangles are the perfect geometric creation. They contain the ‘squaring of the Circle,’ the ‘Philosophers’ Stone,’ the great problems of Life and Death–the mystery of Evil.”

Traditionally, the Hexagram can be seen as the combination of the 4 elements. The triangle with the point upwards symbolizes Air, and with a horizontal line across its center symbolizes Fire. The triangle with the point downwards symbolizes Earth, and with a horizontal line across its center symbolizes Water. The two combined create the Hexagram, and hence a combination of the elements. The middle of the Hexagram is affixed to the vortex of influence. It is the metaphorical power of the whirlwind and the vehicle that carries the winds of death and chaos in order to purify and sanctify.

In a strange coincidence astrology charts for the month of March are demonstrating a pattern that is beneath the radar and may symbolize the road to purification and change soon. Composite Charts for the new and full moon are showing a Hexagram forming in the first 3 days in March and then forming again the last 3. Not only is that two 3’s (33) but the stars look like Solomon’s seals. The one Hexagram key began on 3/3/12 the other will begin on 3/29/12

There is most definitely an interest in what is happening in March as the late Andrew Breitbart had stated before his untimely death. Breitbart had tweeted that the firworks of intrigue were about to erupt on march 1st, 2012 and then died before he had a chance to see the first spark.

It seems that there are so many ways to toe all the loose ends together in order to figure out what may happen in this month, however we may want to circle March 7th, as a day that may give us a clue as to what may happen. In order to understand why the 7th is so important you have to look back at history and use it as a way to decode the present and the approximated outcomes for a possible action that will get a mass reaction. The type of reaction that Cliff high spoke of when he appeared on Ground zero speaking of a “trigger” event that would happen between March 2, 2012 and March 14th, 2012.

Madonna performed her Superbowl ritual on February 5th, 2012. It was amazing that Madonna was chosen to perform even without a major hit on the radio and many people wanting more Lady Gaga. Could it be that she was chosen because of her Kabbalist leanings and her chosen holy name of Esther?

Some 2,000 years ago, the Jewish people, Exiled in the vast empire of Persia faced a plot engineered by the king’s chief minister to annihilate them. Since then, the salvation of the Jews at that time is commemorated by Jewish communities everywhere as the Jewish holiday of Purim. The story of what transpired, as is recorded in the Biblical Book of Esther.

Haman, the evil minister, a surviving descendant of Amalek, convinced and bribed King Ahasuerus to issue an irrevocable decree that all the Jews were to be killed on one day throughout the Empire, their property would then be available to anyone who wished to take it.

Mordechai, a member of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and the leader of the exiled Jews in Shushan, the capital of the Persian Empire, and his niece Esther who was chosen by Ahasuerus to be Queen of Persia, proved to the King that Haman was out for himself and was disloyal. The King then issued another decree allowing the Jews to arm and defend themselves The end result: over 75,000 of the attackers of the Jews were killed and the Jews were victorious.

Purim is celebrated to this day. It is similar to Halloween as the Haman is often portrayed as a demonic King and there are noisemakers that are used in a ritual of vengeance against the Jewish enemies. It is similar to the vilifying and killing of the king. This year Jewish revelers have been asked to but names on their noisemakers. The names of Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are now the equivalent of the Haman as the Purim ritual takes on a repeat performance against the so called “Kings” and rulers of Iran, which of course was historically called Persia.

Purim is a celebration of vengeance and victory against all enemies of the Jews. History has a strange tendency to show patterns and this year there is no exception. The U.S.-NATO led invasion against Muammar Kaddafi’s Libya occurred on March 19, 2011 coincidentally during the Purim Celebrations. President George W. Bush’s “shock and awe” attack on Iraq in 2003 also began on Purim.

This year Purim begins at sundown March 7th and ends on March 8th 2012. Out of pure coincidence the time that will elapse between Esther’s (Madonna’s) performance at the Superbowl and the end of Purim will be 33 days.

Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the Iranian nuclear stand-off.

Currently, Israel believes it has little choice but to plan to attack or somehow try to neutralize Iran. Syria is realizing that it is being cut off from much of the world and Iran is one of its few reliable allies. Iran and Syria may well team up against Israel–and this could include using biological and chemical weapons against Israel.

Will they attack on the 7th or 8th?

US President Barack Obama sought to reaffirm support for Israel, telling the country’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that America “will always have Israel’s back” when it comes to dealing with Iran.

Netanyahu also made a peculiar statement in a press conference with Obama. He said that Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values and that we defend common interests. He added that we also face common enemies and Iranian leaders know this as well, they call the United States the great Satan and Israel the little Satan and you know what Mr. President? At least on this last point I think they are right. We are you and you are us, we are together.”

Words are hard things to take back and it seems vengeance against Persia will be a dish that will most definitely be served cold.

It Was Always About Regime Change

America’s Predictable Betrayal of the Iran

Deal

America’s withdrawal from the “Iran deal” doesn’t prove that Iran is a threat to world peace and stability – instead – it proves that America cannot be trusted. 

In a 2009 report titled, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), corporate-financier funded US policy think tank the Brookings Institution would explicitly call for a deal to be offered by the US to Iran only to be intentionally broken and used as a pretext for direct military confrontation.

The report would propose (emphasis added):

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

The exactitude by which this 2009 policy has been executed – transcending two US presidencies – and leading precisely to the edge of an impending US-Iranian confrontation in the Middle East already being fought out in proxy across Syria, Iraq, and some may argue, Yemen – should leave no doubts as to what happens next.

US Troops Already in Place to Fight Long-Planned Confrontation with Iran

US troops are now operating all along Iran’s so-called “arc of influence” across the Middle East – thanks in part to the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) and America’s alleged efforts to combat it. As was predicted at the onset of ISIS’ entrance into the conflict, the US has used the terrorist organization’s presence across the region to justify its initial and now expanding occupation of Syria and its continued interference in Iraq.
 

However, what the US has done instead of actually fighting ISIS – from Syria to Iraq – is divide and weaken Iran’s regional allies – dragging them into a protracted and destructive conflict, exhausting their numbers and taxing their logistical and economic underpinnings. At the same time – however – they have created the circumstances in which Russia has intervened directly and on a scale eclipsing and complicating US involvement in both terms of diplomatic legitimacy and in terms of military force.

With Kurdish factions receiving US support and attempting to carve out territory straddling the Syrian-Iraqi border – also under the guise of “fighting” ISIS – the US and its partners are now attempting to introduce a new narrative – that Kurdish independence is under threat not by ISIS, but by Iranian-backed armies on both sides of the border.

Plan B Already Facing Setbacks 

Recent security operations carried out by the Iraqi government in taking back its northern city of Kirkuk from a US-backed Kurdish occupation conjured up headlines across the West implying that Baghdad and its Iranian backers were seizing Kurdish territory, though most articles bury admissions toward the end of them that much of this territory was indeed seized first by Kurdish militants under the guise of fighting ISIS.

CNN in its article, “Kirkuk: A crisis waiting to happen, with consequences for region,” would claim:

[Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi] had the option of acquiescing and agreeing to negotiate Iraqi Kurdistan’s long-term future, or refusing to accept the challenge it presented to Iraq’s integrity. He chose the latter, no doubt under pressure from pro-Iranian Shia militia leaders who have long warned that Kirkuk is a red line.

CNN would also claim:

Kurdish officials have always expected that post-ISIS larger conflicts would erupt. One senior commander told CNN two years ago that ISIS was no more than an irritant to the Kurds. What they really feared was expansionist Shia militia, well equipped and funded by Iran.

Here, CNN attempts to sell a narrative that will effectively shift America’s justification for remaining involved in the Middle East from fighting a now defeated ISIS to confronting Iran.

Ultimately CNN – and other articles echoing these concerted talking points – admit:

The city and its surroundings have long been a diverse area comprising Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. Kurds returned to Kirkuk in huge numbers after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and further entrenched their control in 2014 when repelling ISIS advances.

It is an admission that lays bare as a lie the narrative that Kirkuk is somehow “Kurdish” – a lie intentionally perpetuated to justify a Balkanized region and continued US interference across it.
 

Iraqi security operations – if ultimately successful – set a precedent that may be duplicated in Syria – where Kurdish factions with US-backing are openly and overwhelmingly confronted and rolled back when the timing is right – depriving the US of what it had hoped would become a “safe zone” from which it could continue its dissection of the Middle East and its proxy war on Iran and more indirectly, on Russia.

Key in Iraq’s initial success in retaking Kirkuk is not exclusively its support from Iranian-backed militias, but from Kurdish factions themselves – illustrating the lack of unity among Kurdish groups in fulfilling Washington’s ambitions – and perhaps an opportunity for both Baghdad and Damascus to strike a mutually beneficial deal that would maintain the territorial integrity of both states and provide peace and stability everyone in the region would benefit from, including the more realistic factions among the Kurds.

Despite this tenuous footing the United States now finds itself on, the prospect of the US and its regional partners launching a desperate last-ditch military assault on Iran cannot be ruled out. Declining hegemons rarely exit with grace and the US is no exception. In many ways, the destructive, brutal 6 year conflict that has consumed Syria and Iraq is the manifestation of America’s ungraceful refusal to accept a permanently shifting paradigm both in the Middle East and across the globe.

Should the US or one of its proxies – particularly Israel – succeed in provoking Iran – or creating a crisis that could be portrayed as an Iranian provocation – a more direct and destructive military confrontation may quickly escalate – another plan that was covered in great depth within the 2009 Brookings Institution paper, “Which Path to Persia?”

Should Iran and its allies across the region and around the world continue patiently and intelligently confounding and confronting American hegemony in the Middle East, it will continue to wane until it ultimately evaporates.

As the US backtracks on the Iran deal – exposing the fact that US policymakers never planned on honoring it in the first place and only ever saw it as a means of justifying conflict rather than preventing it – helps further undermine US efforts to perpetuate the devastating war it has engineered across the region. Exposing the US as the primary factor driving conflict in the Middle East rather than an essential broker for achieving peace, is the first of many necessary steps required toward achieving real, actual, and enduring peace.

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

The Iran “Nuclear Deal” Leads to War, Not

Peace

September 25, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – The so-called Iran “nuclear deal,” officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was hailed as “historic” when the United States among other nations became a signatory of it. Then US President Barack Obama, attempted to make convincing statements regarding America’s commitment to the deal.
 

However, America’s rhetoric compared to its actual actions diplomatically, militarily, and geopolitically told two different stories.

US Was Waging Proxy War with Iran when the Deal was Signed 

The deal was created in 2015, 4 full years since the United States engineered a destructive proxy war in Syria – one of Iran’s closest and most crucial regional allies. By 2015, the United States had already committed to direct military intervention in Syria, occupying Syrian territory, directly arming, funding, and providing air support for militants seizing Syrian territory, and even constructing military bases within Syria’s borders.

By 2015, the United States was revealed to have poured billions of dollars into arming militants ranging from Kurdish groups in Syria’s northeast, to militants aligned to Al Qaeda and even the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) in northern and southern Syria.
 

While US President Barack Obama posed as conciliatory toward Iran, the US was steeped deeply in not only a proxy war against Syria, but ultimately a proxy war aimed directly at Iran.

According to years of US policy papers, dismantling Iran’s allies in Syria and Lebanon were crucial prerequisites toward eventually undermining and overthrowing the government and political order in Iran itself.

In 2009, US corporate-financier sponsored geopolitical policy think tank, the Brookings Institution, would publish a 170 page report titled, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), in which it proposes several options, including having Israel attack Iran on Washington’s behalf. The report states (emphasis added):

…the Israelis may want U.S. help with a variety of things. Israel may be more willing to bear the risks of Iranian retaliation and international opprobrium than the United States is, but it is not invulnerable and may request certain commitments from the United States before it is ready to strike. For instance, the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus.

In hindsight, it is clear that no “peace deal” would be struck with Syria, and instead, the wholesale destruction of Syria would be orchestrated. Many of the proposals presented in the Brookings report in regards to triggering conflict and regime change in Iran have been instead used on Syria. 

Betraying the “Nuclear Deal” is Stated US Policy 

Signing an agreement posing as rapprochement while simultaneously waging proxy war against a principle party of the agreement already indicates  US intentions regarding Iran and America’s commitment to honoring the agreement.

Beyond US policymakers openly conspiring to weaken or altogether dismantle Iran’s regional allies before setting upon Iran directly, years before the JCPOA was signed, US policymakers pledged to propose then intentionally betray a “superb offer” to help portray Iran rather than the United States as both an irrational threat to global security and a nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons for the “wrong reasons.”

The 2009 Brookings Institution report “Which Path to Persia?” would explicitly describe this ploy, stating:
 

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Shortly before US President Barack Obama ended his second term in office, preparations were already underway to backtrack on the Iran deal. With US President Donald Trump now presiding over US foreign policy, the US is preparing to either entirely withdraw from the deal, or rewrite its conditions in such a fashion that Iran will be unable to accept it.

As the End Game Approaches in Syria 

While regime change and the total division and destruction of Syria would have been ideal for US policymakers who then seek to wage war upon Iran, Syria and its allies have paid a significant price in personnel and materiel.

Despite this, Syrian forces have retaken virtually all significant population centers across the nation, including Syria’s largest city Aleppo where reconstruction is already beginning. Syrian forces have also crossed and are currently establishing a stronghold east of the Euphrates River, further complicating the partitioning of Syrian territory as envisioned by US policymakers and their Kurdish and Arab proxies.

With Russian and Iranian forces deeply dug in on the ground in Syria, the likelihood of the US and its partners making any further headway against Syria is unlikely and faces a “now or never” moment in regards to pivoting the conflict and its regional resources toward Iran. Reconstruction in Syria and the loosening of sanctions versus Iran will only further impede possible future operations against Iran.

US Forfeits Illusion of Independent Israeli Foreign Policy 

Signaling increasing signs of desperation and aggression, the US has opened its first official military base in what has for all intents and purposes been for decades a “forward operating base” for Wall Street and Washington in the Middle East – Israel.
 

The Times of Israel in an article titled, “In first, US establishes permanent military base in Israel,” would note:

For the first time in history, the United States on Monday established an official, permanent military base in Israel: an air defense base in the heart of the Negev desert.

Dozens of US Air Force soldiers will call home the new base, located inside the Israeli Air Force’s Mashabim Air Base, west of the towns of Dimona and Yerucham. 

Brig. Gen. Tzvika Haimovitch, head of the IAF’s Aerial Defense Command, announced the establishment of the installation on Monday evening. 

“It’s nothing short of historic,” he said. It demonstrates the “years-old alliance between the United States and the State of Israel.”

While it is indeed “historic,” it is also notable for the significant concession it represents. For decades Anglo-American interests benefited from the perception that Israel possessed its own aggressive, independent foreign policy. Maintaining this perception allowed the US and its Western allies to use Israel to carry out regional aggression while maintaining plausible deniability.

The aforementioned Brookings document specifically cited this as one of several possible means for provoking war with Iran – by having Israel appear to unilaterally attack Iran, with the US only joining in direct military intervention once Iran either committed to retaliation or a staged attack on Israel could be blamed on Iran.

With a permanent US military base on Israeli soil, plausible deniability and the illusion of an independent Israeli foreign policy vanishes completely. This may signal a much more blunt approach by Washington regarding any upcoming aggression against both Syria and Iran.

Regional Consolidation in Preparation for What? 

The US finds itself overtly consolidating its positions in the Middle East at a time when the global balance of power teeters dangerously close to irrevocably undoing American hegemony.

Preparing the Middle East for war with Iran has been a work-in-progress since the end of the Cold War. It is an agenda that has transcended multiple US presidencies and has included everything from US-backed terrorism in the form of organizations like Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to US-backed color revolutions like the “Green Revolution” in 2009, to the current proxy war being waged against Syria and the ongoing diplomatic maneuvering surrounding the Iranian “nuclear deal.”

Radical shifts in US policy regarding Iran are not owed to new occupants in the White House, but rather the shifting geopolitical realities as the US declines and other nations incrementally rise upon the world stage. Today, the US has exhausted its international clout, repeatedly abused international mechanisms for conflict resolution, and is openly pursuing a war in Syria with the aid of militant groups internationally designated as terrorist organizations. As its ability to wage war against Ian behind a smokescreen of legitimacy dwindles, the likelihood of it openly carrying out an act of aggression increases.

US policymakers may hope that after consolidating its positions in the Middle East, it can carry out a single, sweeping act of military aggression Iran’s allies will be unable or unwilling to contest.

Desperate hegemons are dangerous hegemons.

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

Tehran Was Always America’s and Thus

the Islamic State’s Final Destination

June 10, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – Several were left dead and many more injured after coordinated terror attacks on Iran’s capital of Tehran. Shootings and bombings targeted Iran’s parliament and the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini.
 

According to Reuters, the so-called “Islamic State” claimed responsibility for the attack, which unfolded just days after another terror attack unfolded in London. The Islamic State also reportedly took responsibility for the violence in London, despite evidence emerging that the three suspects involved were long-known to British security and intelligence agencies and were simply allowed to plot and carry out their attacks.

It is much less likely that Tehran’s government coddled terrorists -as it has been engaged for years in fighting terrorism both on its borders and in Syria amid a vicious six-year war fueled by US, European, and Persian Gulf weapons, cash, and fighters.

Armed Violence Targeting Tehran Was the Stated Goal of US Policymakers

The recent terrorist attacks in Tehran are the literal manifestation of US foreign policy. The creation of a proxy force with which to fight Iran and establishing a safe haven for it beyond Iran’s borders have been long-stated US policy. The current chaos consuming Syria and Iraq – and to a lesser extent in southeast Turkey – is a direct result of the US attempting to secure a base of operations to launch a proxy war directly against Iran.

In the 2009 Brookings Institution document titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” the use of then US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) as a proxy for instigating a full-fledged armed insurgency not unlike that which is currently unfolding in Syria was discussed in detail.

The report explicitly stated:

The United states could also attempt to promote external Iranian opposition groups, providing them with the support to turn themselves into full-fledged insurgencies and even helping them militarily defeat the forces of the clerical regime. The United states could work with groups like the Iraq-based National council of resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed.

Brookings policymakers admitted throughout the report that MEK was responsible for killing both American and Iranian military personnel, politicians, and civilians in what was clear-cut terrorism. Despite this, and admissions that MEK remained indisputably a terrorist organization, recommendations were made to de-list it from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization registry so that more overt support could be provided to the group for armed regime change.

Based on such recommendations and intensive lobbying, the US State Department would eventually de-list MEK in 2012 and the group would receive significant backing from the US openly. This included support from many members of current US President Donald Trump’s campaign team - including Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and John Bolton.

However, despite these efforts, MEK was not capable then or now of accomplishing the lofty goal of instigating full-fledged insurrection against Tehran, necessitating the use of other armed groups. The 2009 Brookings paper made mention of other candidates under a section titled, “Potential Ethnic Proxies,” identifying Arab and Kurdish groups as well as possible candidates for a US proxy war against Tehran.

Under a section titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” Brookings notes:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply.

For the US proxy war on Syria, Turkey and Jordan fulfill this role. For Iran, it is clear that US efforts would have to focus on establishing conduits and safe havens from Pakistan’s southwest Balochistan province and from Kurdish-dominated regions in northern Iraq, eastern Syria, and southeastern Turkey – precisely where current upheaval is being fueled by US intervention both overtly and covertly.

Brookings noted in 2009 that:

It would be difficult to find or build an insurgency with a high likelihood of success. The existing candidates are weak and divided, and the Iranian regime is very strong relative to the potential internal and external challengers.

A group not mentioned by Brookings in 2009, but that exists in the very region the US seeks to create a conduit and safe haven for a proxy war with Iran, is the Islamic State. Despite claims that it is an independent terrorist organization propelled by black market oil sales, ransoms, and local taxes, its fighting capacity, logistical networks, and operational reach demonstrates vast state sponsorship.

The Ultimate Proxy, the Perfect Conduit and Safe Haven

The Islamic State reaching into Iran, southern Russia, and even as far as western China was not only possible, it was inevitable and the logical progression of US policy as stated by Brookings in 2009 and verifiably executed since then.

The Islamic State represents the perfect “proxy,” occupying the ideal conduit and safe haven for executing America’s proxy war against Iran and beyond. Surrounding the Islamic State’s holdings are US military bases, including those illegally constructed in eastern Syria. Were the US to wage war against Iran in the near future, it is likely these assets would all “coincidentally” coordinate against Tehran just as they are now being “coincidentally” coordinated against Damascus.

The use of terrorism, extremists, and proxies in executing US foreign policy, and the use of extremists observing the Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s brand of indoctrination was demonstrated definitively during the 1980′s when the US with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – used Al Qaeda to expel Soviet forces from Afghanistan. This example is in fact mentioned explicitly by Brookings policymakers as a template for creating a new proxy war – this time against Iran.
 

For the US, there is no better stand-in for Al Qaeda than its successor the Islamic State. US policymakers have demonstrated a desire to use known terrorist organizations to wage proxy war against targeted nation-states, has previously done so in Afghanistan, and has clearly organized the geopolitical game board on all sides of Iran to facilitate its agenda laid out in 2009. With terrorists now killing people in Tehran, it is simply verification that this agenda is advancing onward.

Iran’s involvement in the Syrian conflict illustrates that Tehran is well aware of this conspiracy and is actively defending against it both within and beyond its borders. Russia is likewise an ultimate target of the proxy war in Syria and is likewise involved in resolving it in favor of stopping it there before it goes further.

China’s small but expanding role in the conflict is linked directly to the inevitability of this instability spreading to its western Xianjiang province.

While terrorism in Europe, including the recent London attack, is held up as proof that the West is “also” being targeted by the Islamic State, evidence suggests otherwise. The attacks are more likely an exercise in producing plausible deniability.

In reality, the Islamic State – like Al Qaeda before it – depends on vast, multinational state sponsorship – state sponsorship the US, Europe, and its regional allies in the Persian Gulf are providing. It is also sponsorship they can – at anytime of their choosing – expose and end. They simply choose not to in pursuit of regional and global hegemony.

The 2009 Brookings paper is a signed and dated confession of the West’s proclivity toward using terrorism as a geopolitical tool. While Western headlines insist that nations like Iran, Russia, and China jeopardize global stability, it is clear that they themselves do so in pursuit of global hegemony.

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