DEA–The Biggest Cartel

EPN and corruption to be imported

General Oscar Naranjo, and the president-elect, Enrique Peña Nieto. 
Photo: Eduardo Miranda

DEA documents indicate that during the government of Alvaro Uribe several staff supported the drug trafficking activities of the paramilitary United Self Defense Forces of Colombia, the Office of Envigado criminal group and the Norte del Valle Cartel. One of those identified by the U.S. agency is General Oscar Naranjo, who the PRI candidate Enrique Peña Nieto appointed security advisor in case Mexico.The chairing Colombian General Oscar Adolfo Naranjo Trujillo, whom Enrique Peña Nieto announced as the next security adviser, should become President of Mexico had relations with drug traffickers and paramilitaries of his country and was involved in bribery and other corruption.

MEXICO CITY (Process). – This was established in documents U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA, for its acronym in English) made from interrogations of former leaders of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), who stated that politicians and officials close to President Alvaro Uribe (2002-2010) gave them support for their military and drug trafficking.

Salvatore Mancuso Gómez, one of the former leaders of the AUC, extradited to the U.S. in 2008 on charges of drug trafficking, went further and told the DEA that Juan Manuel Santos, the defense minister and the government of Colombian President Uribe participated in a plot to overthrow in 1995 the then president Ernesto Samper. He explained that this conspiracy resulted in the murder of politician Alvaro Gomez Hurtado and said even at that murder “were involved” Gen. Naranjo and one of his officers, Danilo González Gil.

DEA agents also questioned Rafael Garcia, and former official of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), Colombia’s intelligence agency.

Garcia revealed that Jorge Noguera Cotes, DAS director from 2002 to 2005, provided logistical support and infrastructure of the institution to which the AUC traficaran drugs into the U.S. through Mexico and Venezuela and even Noguera himself “was responsible for initial contacts “with the Beltran Leyva cartel.

The memoranda of the DEA has copies of Process-are intended to document “corruption of public officials in Colombia.” Are dated between March 2010 and March 2011, and are addressed to Jay Bergman, regional director of the Division of the DEA Andes, whose offices are in Bogotá.

In the package of documents there is also a “research report” dated August 4, 2009. It was developed by members of the DEA office in New York.

All of them are names of officials, military and police chiefs, legislators and businessmen allegedly linked to the activities of the AUC. In fact, when DEA agents asked Mancuso on political corruption in Colombia, he replied that “according to its own estimates of the AUC over 35% of the congressmen elected in 2002 had some link, financial or other “, with that organization.

General Contacts

According to a DEA memo dated March 25, 2010, Mancuso reported that in 1997 the police arrested him along with Rodrigo Tovar Pupo, commander of the Northern Bloc of the AUC, because they were in possession of automatic weapons and grenades. The police temporarily detained in a prison in the department of La Guajira. Sought help from Carlos Castaño, then top leader of the AUC.

“Then, ‘says the report, Brown called the (at that time) head of the National Police of Colombia, Gen. Rosso Jose Serrano Cadena, and asked for help. Serrano turn called Oscar Naranjo with instructions to get out of jail and Tovar Pupo Mancuso. This (Naranjo) meanwhile sent Colonel Danilo Gonzalez Gil, who rented a plane that took him to La Guajira in order to resolve the legal situation (the paramilitaries). Both were released after paying a bribe. ”

As part of the so-called Justice and Peace process, which allowed the demobilization of the paramilitaries in return for reducing their penalties for their crimes, including killings of civilians, Mancuso appeared in 2006 and 2007 to Colombian prosecutors. According to the memorandum of the DEA, Mancuso said that when these hearings Naranjo began before the media described him as “a liar” and that the general himself “instructed Diego Murillo Bejarano, Don Berna (drug dealer, head of the criminal organization of Envigado and then one of the spokesmen of the AUC), to be silent “Mancuso.

At that time Don Berna and Mancuso were in the same prison in the town of Itagui, Antioquia. According to the document, the first told the second “to keep quiet about corruption in the police or they could hurt your family.” Mancuso said that as a result of his statements “were assassination attempts against his family, while the Colombian government withdrew security devices protecting” to it.
Mancuso told the DEA that the police Col. Danilo Gonzalez-a who described “Naranjo favorite son” – “used to be seen in meetings with members of the North Valle Cartel”, which came even “with his police uniform.”

Gonzalez was in junior Naranjo National Police of Colombia and close associate of the DEA. He was killed in March 2004 in a law office mafia bosses. By this time the government of Colombia had discharged in the police and U.S. authorities had framed for its relations with the North Valley Cartel.

The memorandum notes that when DEA agents Mancuso asked “who else could verify his claims about police corruption”, he responded that Don Berna and Luis Gomez Bustamante, Scratch-another former leader of the AUC also extradited to the United -States, “were aware of the widespread corruption of General Naranjo”. He even said that “the relationship between Bustamante and Gomez Naranjo began when both were members of Los Pepes, a paramilitary group created to assassinate members and relatives of Pablo Escobar Gaviria.”

According to the document, Mancuso recalled that in 2003 the police arrested in Bogota Alberto Agredo drug trafficker. He said that while he was in police custody, Murillo Bejarano sent his then deputy Carlos Echeverri with Naranjo Aguilar and paid “$ 500,000 as a bribe to let him go (Agredo)”. He stated that “Agredo was arrested on two other occasions with the sole purpose of blackmail.”

Another DEA memo, also dated March 25, 2010, to review the interrogation Carlos Mario Jimenez Naranjo, Macaco, former member of the Norte del Valle Cartel, commander of the Central Bolivar Bloc of the AUC from 1998 to 2006 and extradited to United States in 2008 for drug trafficking.

Macaco told DEA agents that Wilber Varela, head of the Norte del Valle Cartel, was “long associated” with Naranjo. Varela himself stated that “once told him he had purchased eight cellular interception devices and gave three of them to Dijin (Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Interpol) so used the General Naranjo”.

Varela was killed in Merida, Venezuela, in January 2008. After his death, and amid diplomatic tensions between Bogota and Caracas, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, Minister of Popular Power for Interior and Justice of Venezuela, offered on March 4 of that year a press conference in which he accused the government Colombia being the murder.

He showed a computer that investigators found in Venezuela where Varela died and that would have belonged. He said he had information on that computer that established “consanguineous and affinal ties, more than that, business” between the drug dealer and Naranjo. He added that Varela “was killed before he capturáramos not to reveal important information” (Proceso 1859).


During interrogation he was subjected by the DEA, Salvatore Mancuso said Juan Manuel Santos, former Minister of Defense of the Uribe government and current president of Colombia, “maintained ties with the AUC and cocaine traffickers.”Moreover, Santos said “was involved in planning a military coup against the administration of (Ernesto) Samper” (1994-1998).

The memo said the DEA’s March 25, 2010 stands:

“Mancuso said Santos and the rest of the oligarchy of Bogota were upset by the corruption and inefficiency of the Samper administration and decided to join forces with the Norte del Valle Cartel and the AUC in order to replace a politician Samper popular choice (…)

“Interim President Alvaro Gomez Hurtado should be. Mancuso said that Santos and the rest of the conspirators wanted information about bribes that the Norte del Valle Cartel had paid Samper administration and that this information and the support of the Colombian military they destabilize the Samper government, which would replace by an interim government headed by Gómez Hurtado. ”

The document continues: “Mancuso said Santos and 20 other people were flown to the city of Monteria, in the department of Cordoba, and then took a helicopter belonging to Luis Hernando Gomez Bustamante (aka Scratch, a major cartel kingpins North Valley) that transported them to San Pedro de Urabá, Antioquia, where they planned the coup. Unfortunately for the conspirators, was that Gomez Hurtado declined to be president and threatened to expose the plan. According to Mancuso, Danilo González Gil and Naranjo were involved in the murder of Gomez Hurtado to cover the conspiracy. ”

Gómez Hurtado was deputy, senator and three-time candidate for President of Colombia. His murder occurred on November 2, 1995 as he was leaving the premises of the University Sergio Arboleda.

Actually Mancuso’s statements to the DEA on Santos involvement in a plot to overthrow Samper not new. We had made the May 15, 2007 before tax of Colombia, during the Justice and Peace process. Only then did not mention that the plot would have resulted in the death of Gomez Hurtado.

According to a note published Caracol Radio in May 2007, Santos, then defense minister, denied allegations that Gomez Bustamante made against him in the Justice and Peace process. Admitted Samper wanted to leave the government, but never proposed overthrow.

But this alleged plot, for illegal wiretapping scandal by the intelligence services and the police have made statements that strained relations with Venezuela, in May of that year the opposition parties to the government of Uribe and Radical Change Party (Uribe coalition) in the Colombian Congress proposed a motion of censure against Santos. On June 13 of that year, Congress rejected the motion because backtracked Radical Change.

As Semana magazine published on January 20, 2010, Gomez-Bustamante extradited to the United States in July 2007 – told a Colombian-American judicial commission that former President Samper and his Interior Minister Horacio Serpa, allegedly masterminding Gómez Hurtado’s death and that Colonel Danilo Gonzalez allegedly used two noncommissioned officers of the National Police you trust to commit the murder. Both Serpa Samper denied any involvement in the killing and described the statements of Gomez Bustamante of “fantasy”.

The Bodyguard

In interviews with the DEA, Mancuso and Jimenez Naranjo noted that several close aides to former President Uribe took money from the AUC and drug trafficking organizations in exchange for offering support.

One of them, retired Gen. Mauricio Velasco Santoyo, Uribe Security chief from 2002 to 2005.

Santoyo said Naranjo Jiménez received a “salary” of the AUC and a brother-this was the security chief drug trafficker Daniel Barrera Barrera, El Loco Barrera.

Another questioned by the DEA, Francisco Florez Upegui, Don Pancho, former leader of the Office of Envigado-Santoyo said had links to the Office of Envigado and Peter Gallon Henao-linked drug trafficking activities “had access to corrupt officials at the highest level in the Colombian police, which received ‘special favors’ through Santoyo “.

These statements to the DEA in March and May 2010, respectively, apparently were unfounded: the Colombian press reported that on Monday February Santoyo DEA gave the agency’s hangar at the military airport in Bogota. The reason: faces drug trafficking charges in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

According to the U.S. indictment, the AUC and the Office of Envigado paid kickbacks to Montoya for it to assist in drug trafficking operations and hand them operational intelligence on the DEA and Colombian authorities.

Oscar Rodriguez, Santoyo lawyer, said he “pleaded guilty” during a hearing on Friday 13 in federal court in Alexandria, as published on Wednesday 18 Colombian newspaper El Espectador.

The cartel of the three letters

A “research report” prepared by the DEA office in New York, dated August 4, 2009, accounts for interrogation made by members of that agency to Rafael Garcia, head of the Information Systems DAS September 2002 to January 2005.The interrogation took place in Montevideo, Uruguay, from 28 to 30 July 2009.

According to that document, Garcia said during the 2002 presidential election “Raul Montoya Flores, a wealthy businessman who was a friend of Gilberto Molina, former member of the Medellin Cartel during the nineties, provided large amounts of money to finance the presidential campaign” of Uribe. He argued that “Molina bank accounts were used to pay for the murder of the editor of the newspaper The Spectator, Guillermo Cano”.

Garcia noted that in 2002 when Uribe won the presidential election, he appointed as director Jorge Noguera Cotes DAS. The request made by Sergio Araujo Castro, figurehead commander of the Northern Bloc of the AUC, Rodrigo Tovar Pupo, Jorge 40. At that time Garcia Noguera appointed head of the Information Systems DAS.

Garcia said his job was to “support the AUC”, which included obtaining intelligence secrets and manipulate or alter judicial information to benefit the AUC and major traffickers. He said that to do this, the DAS was supported by collaborators located within several legal entities of the Colombian government.

For example: “The overall exprocurador then ambassador of Colombia in Mexico, Juan Camilo Osorio, the DAS provided information on seizures of assets that were outstanding arrest warrants and extradition requests, which facilitated the task of altering DAS delete files or criminals. ”

Garcia said that the then Colonel Mauricio Velasco Santoyo, Uribe’s security chief, was “receiver” of information obtained illegally by the DAS and sometimes he requested the agency will “investigate individuals which were subsequently subjected to threats of death or attempts on their lives. ”

Garcia said that the AUC provided information about an operation against the National Police of Colombia would make in the department of Magdalena. This corporation realized and began investigating. At that time the DAS received information about an operation against the AUC should inform them: The Operation Cyclone, which would carry out the Anti-Money Laundering Unit of the Attorney General’s Office. Garcia declined to provide information to the paramilitary organization. He confessed that he feared for his safety and that of your family. Noguera talked to his boss.

“Noguera told Garcia that President Uribe and Attorney Osorio had knowledge of everything that they (Noguera and Garcia) were doing and made an appointment with the president in which he approved the release of secret information,” the report rests DEA.

He adds, “Garcia gave the information to the AUC, which resulted in the failure of Operation Cyclone”.

Garcia said that in 2003 Noguera created an underground group to infiltrate Venezuela and provide support for the Democratic Bloc (BD), President Chavez opposition organization. He said the BD allowed clandestine group that used Venezuelan territory and coastal areas to traffic drugs in exchange for support of the DAS and the AUC to overthrow Chávez.

Garcia said the DAS became known as “the cartel of the three letters” because, in its support to the AUC, was directly involved in drug trafficking.

He told: “The narcotics were being transported from Colombia to Venezuela and then to Guatemala and Mexico via speedboats carrying tons of cocaine. The former governor of the department of Cesar, Hernando Molina Araujo, established routes and facilitated contacts in Guatemala for loads of cocaine. ”

The DEA document adds: “Noguera was responsible for initiating contacts with the organization of the Beltran Leyva Mexican. Garcia also traveled to Mexico and representing Noguera met with members of the Beltran Leyva, who negotiated with drug shipments. ”

Garcia and Noguera had denounced in 2006 in Colombia. A year later the Colombian justice stopped him and started against a judgment that climbed to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which in September 2011 was sentenced to 25 years in prison for an alliance with the paramilitaries of the AUC and facilitate insider.

Obama’s Plan To Win the Terror War By Enlisting All the Terrorists On Our Side

Obama’s terrorist-list blunder

by Richard Javad Heydarian

(source: Asia Times)

The French diplomatic genius Charles Maurice de Talleyrand once said: “It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.” This is perhaps the best way to describe the US State Department’s recent decision to take the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) off its notorious list of 52 foreign terrorist organizations. It was yet another setback in the negotiations between Iran and the West on the former’s nuclear program.

It is one of those cynical moves that will only exacerbate an already unfavorable diplomatic atmosphere, suffering from a dearth of goodwill and mutual trust. Iran and the US are already stuck in a dangerous game of chicken: Washington is pressing its advantage by increasingly tightening the noose around Iran’s economy, while Tehran is relentlessly pushing the boundaries of its nuclear-enrichment capabilities toward a fait accompli. Both sides are in essence locked in a precarious form of brinkmanship, bringing the world closer to a devastating confrontation. The Persian Gulf has been witnessing increased military tensions in recent months, with both the US and Iran fortifying their military presence and stepping up their military activities.

Meanwhile, sanctions have been biting into Iran’s increasingly vulnerable economy, embittering the Iranian population toward the West, especially the US. Instead of reaching out to the Iranian people, as he repeatedly promised, US President Barack Obama is not only imposing what can be termed in international law as collective punishment, but also accommodating an organization that most Iranians identify with treachery and deceit.

Obviously, the current deadlock could only be broken through sustained and meaningful diplomacy. However, diplomatic efforts have been in a protracted state of hiatus, with the Iranians postponing any major agreement until the US overcomes its cyclical diplomatic handicap – the inability to make a decisive and lasting concession until the conclusion of the presidential election.

The MEK decision is also a classic example of how domestic politics can derail high-stake diplomacy, with the fate of international security hanging in the balance. To secure his re-election bid, President Obama is trying hard to look tough on Iran. But what Obama ignores is how his short-term political calculations may carry long-term risks vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear issue.

An ambivalent decision
The delisting of the MEK came ahead of a court-ordered October deadline, with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sending a classified document to Congress earlier, detailing her department’s position on the matter.

In 1997, the State Department placed the MEK on its Foreign Terrorist Organizations List for its history of terrorist activities, especially against US citizens in the 1970s. However, ironically, Washington protected the MEK members in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf after toppling Saddam Hussein, the organization’s main patron. Later, when the group came under increasing pressure – ahead of US troop withdrawal – by the Tehran-backed government in Baghdad, Washington opposed any violent crackdown on the camp, while exploring means to transfer MEK members elsewhere. Finally, amid a logistical headache and rising political noise, Washington transferred some of the 3,000-strong MEK militia to Camp Liberty, a former US military base near Baghdad International Airport.

The State Department justified its delisting of the MEK on the grounds that the organization has publicly renounced violence, cooperated in the closure of Camp Ashraf, and has shunned terrorism for more than a decade.

Crucially, the move came in the midst of continuous vilification of Iran as an imminent nuclear threat that should be met with force, a narrative enthusiastically espoused by a wide spectrum ranging from hawkish Republicans in the US Congress to pundits in the mainstream media as well as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and his powerful friends in the Israel lobby in the US). Netanyahu has already called for an explicit “red line” against Iran’s nuclear program, coaxing Washington to place the military option squarely on the table.

However, it is not clear whether Washington actually sees the MEK as a possible asset and a viable ally in the event of direct confrontation with Iran as the window for a diplomatic compromise rapidly narrows. The delisting was perhaps just an effort to annoy Tehran or, more important, to appease the anti-Iran establishment amid the current US presidential election campaign.

For its proponents, the recent move was just a logical extension of a broader Western accommodation of an organization that claims to represent the “legitimate democratic opposition” in Iran. Britain delisted the MEK back in 2008 and the European Union a year later. The group has significant presence in such places as Paris, which hosts its headquarters, and has staged major rallies in the French capital.

Maryam Rajavi, the organization’s Paris-based leader, welcomed the US move by stating: “This has been the correct decision, albeit long overdue, in order to remove a major obstacle in the path of the Iranian people’s efforts for democracy.”

Anti-Iran hawks in the US hardly held back their enthusiasm. Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher expressed his joy with the decision, because he believes “the MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful and democratic government”, while Ted Poe, Republican member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, described the decision as “long overdue”.

The decision is a culmination of years of lavish and aggressive lobbying by the MEK – boosted by growing support from rich Iranian-American exiles opposed to the regime in Tehran – directed at (current and former) top US officials and leaders from both the Democratic and Republican camps.

The MEK spent US$1.5 million alone to hire three leading Washington lobby firms. It channeled millions of dollars in “speaking fees” to sympathetic American officials and leaders who graced the MEK’s high-profile events, rallies and campaign gatherings calling for the State Department to delist the organization.

The list of top-notch supporters is astonishing. The former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, has been among the group’s biggest beneficiaries, reportedly receiving up to $150,000 in speaking fees. For the Republican chairwoman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the figure stands at around $20,000. Former presidential candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties, namely Bill Richardson, Howard Dean and Rudolf Giuliani, have also joined the fray.

With the speaking-engagement fees running in the territory of $15,000-$30,000, former top security/intelligence officials, namely ex-Federal Bureau of Investigation director Louis Freeh, former Central Intelligence Agency directors Porter Goss and James Woolsey, and Obama’s former national security adviser General James Jones, have lent their support too. Even Wesley Clark, a former North Atlantic Treaty Organization commander, is among the elite supporters.

What is clear is that the Obama administration has found it increasingly difficult to ignore an organization that has astutely exploited growing cynicism against Iran, staged numerous rallies and vigils outside the State Department, organized huge sit-ins in congressional hearings, and rallied the support of leading US figures. The administration has finally succumbed to the pressure. But this domestic concession could carry significant costs in the broader multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear conundrum.

Potential diplomatic fallout
In the initial years of the Islamic Revolution, its supporters had to contend with the MEK, an organization founded on an eclectic Marxist-Islamist-nationalist ideology, as a major rival in determining the fate of the new Islamic Republic. After all, during the 1979 revolution, the MEK was among the major players within the broad coalition of forces that deposed the Shah. After a series of violent confrontations in the immediate post-revolutionary years, a severely weakened MEK lost whatever measure of popular legitimacy it enjoyed when it sided with Saddam Hussein against Iran during the eight-year “imposed war” (Jang-e-Tahmili).

After its expulsion from Iran, much of its paramilitary capability was concentrated in Iraq, under the generous sponsorship of the Baathist regime. So it practically lost any significant presence within Iran. The MEK is an organization with few to no roots within Iran’s political landscape, so it is not clear how it could play a critical role in changing that landscape and/or Tehran’s nuclear posture to America’s advantage. This is precisely why successive US administrations have instead reached out to reformist elements within Iran, never seeing the MEK as a viable ally.

It must be noted that Washington’s 1997 decision to include the MEK in the list of terrorist organizations was part of its nascent diplomatic outreach to the newly empowered reformist government in Tehran under president Mohammad Khatami. After all, inclusion of groups in the Foreign Terrorist Organization list has been generally arbitrary, simply tuned to America’s short-term strategic interests.

In recent years the Obama administration, at least rhetorically, sided with Iran’s so-called Green Movement – a loose network of forces composed of certain reformist leaders and disenchanted sections of the society – that formed the backbone of post-election protests in 2009. However, there have never been institutionalized channels of communication between Washington and Iran’s leading reformists. So it seems that accommodating the MEK is somehow a desperate effort to build ties with alternative Iranian elements explicitly opposed to the regime.

Yet there may have been even more concrete reasons. Reports suggesting increased intelligence and security cooperation between the MEK on the one hand and Israeli and US agencies on the other in recent years provide the strongest hint behind Washington’s decision to delist the group.

In 2002, an MEK-affiliate group, the National Council of Resistance in Iran, revealed a laptop containing confidential information about Iran’s burgeoning enrichment activities in Natanz and Arak. Since the MEK does not possess an independent and credible intelligence-gathering capacity, it is widely believed that Israeli intelligence agencies were behind the leaked documents. The revelation marked the beginning of a decade of tense nuclear negotiations between Iran and world powers, which precipitated a severe set of sanctions and repeated threats of military intervention against Tehran.

In April this year, leading investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that back in 2005, the Nevada-based Joint Special Operations Command trained “Iranians associated with the MEK” as part of the George W Bush administration’s broader “global war on terror”. Commentators have also suggested that various Western intelligence agencies, especially Israel’s Mossad, have been working closely with the MEK in a “shadow war” ranging from sabotage against Iran’s key military and oil facilities to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and sabotage of nuclear installations.

Understandably, the Iranian authorities immediately lashed out against Washington’s decision to delist one of its most long-standing nemeses. Iran holds the MEK responsible for at least 12,000 deaths, including high-profile members of the regime in the early years of the revolution. Iranian state television accused the US of double standards by supporting “good terrorists” who serve its interests by working against Iran and its nuclear program. The Iranian Foreign Ministry warned that the decision would put on the US “responsibility for past, present and future terrorist operations by this group”, just as Rajavi expressed her hopes that the delisting “will lead to the expansion of anti-regime activities within Iran”.

Negotiations on the nuclear program are already in bad shape. Despite repeated overtures by Tehran – from decreasing enrichment activities to the 3-5% territory, to shipping out its stockpile of high-enriched uranium, and opening up of its whole nuclear infrastructure for inspection – to resolve the standoff, the Obama administration has repeatedly refused to meet Iran’s two basic demands: (1) An unequivocal recognition of Iran’s enrichment rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); and (2) reversal of unilateral sanctions battering Iran’s entire economy.

Obama’s accommodation of the MEK will further undermine its nuclear diplomacy toward Iran. It will do nothing but strengthen the hands of Iranian hardliners – at the expense of pro-diplomacy pragmatists – who have called for a withdrawal from the NPT, an increase of enrichment levels to 60%, and preparations for a military confrontation with the West.

Beyond regime insiders, the Obama administration has also alienated ordinary Iranians and opposition elements who detest the MEK and view the latest move as another cynical ploy to retard Iran’s scientific progress and bring the country to its knees.

Richard Javad Heydarian is a Manila-based foreign-affairs analyst. He has reported for or been quoted in The Diplomat, UPI, Foreign Policy, Tehran Times, Russia Today and Foreign Policy In Focus, among others.

NATO Uses Turkey, Who Uses Free Syrian Army, To Self-Authorize NATO Attack On Syria

[This Israeli government spokesman is appealing to the world to accept the proposition that any stray bullets or shells coming across the border from Syria are an  “attack” upon Turkey, and by extension, an attack upon NATO.  This statement is intended to back-up the recent Turkish Parliament authorization for military operations inside Syria.  So Turkey is now ready to do what Israel has been afraid to do, go to war against Syria.  It would almost seem as though Israel and Turkey had planned all of this from the beginning, were it not for that ugly little incident with the Gaza Flotilla and the IDF attack upon the MV Mavi Marmara aid ship, on May 31 2010.  Less than one year later, in March or April 2011. the civil war was beginning inside Syria.  

Is it more likely that two bitter antagonists could completely reverse their animosity in less than a year, to suddenly emerge united with one purpose, or is it more reasonable to assume that Israel and Turkey were secretly working hand-in-glove all along?

The anti-Syria project is part of the Greater Middle East strategy of the United States.  Therefore, we are at this critical juncture in the anti-Syrian project (Israel supporting Turkey’s call for NATO intervention, while Obama appears to be cautioning against it) because that has been the plan all along, to give the President the appearance of having “clean hands.”  Either that, or this has been an Israeli operation from the beginning, to force Turkey and the US/NATO into eliminating Syria for Israel.  For that matter, you would then have to credit the Israelis for the entire Greater Middle East project, even though the whole thing fell apart when US/NATO forces failed to pile-on on the side of Israel against Hezbollah in 2006.  If Israelis had been in charge of the terror war at that time, Syria would have been bombed back to the Stone Age long ago.  Therefore, the only reasonable assumption to make is that Israel has been handling the CIA’s dirty work in laying the groundwork for this latest anti-Syrian operation, in order to maintain plausible deniability for Washington.  

Turkey and Israel appeared to be set at odds, in order to elevate Turkey’s image in the Muslim world.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar were allowed to conduct their own foreign policies (which appeared to be going against the desires of Obama) for the same reason, to elevate their status on the Muslim street.   Together, the three “maverick” Arab governments have appeared to take the lead in the American/NATO/Arab alliance, creating a so-called “Islamic NATO,” which was used to overthrow the Libyan government and to murder Muammar Qaddafi.  This Islamist NATO has led the preliminary battles which have been scheduled as the opening rounds of the bigger war to come, as justification at the United Nations Security Council to empower the real NATO forces inside Syria, so they can do the same to Bashar al-Assad.  

Turkey has been America’s primary puppet in this grand deception all along, meaning that the Turkish government has sanctioned the attack which killed eight Turkish citizens on the MV Mavi Marmara in the Gaza Flotilla and probably the PKK attack upon the  Turkish Navy Barracks at Iskenderun earlier that same morning, as well.  In that rocket attack, seven Turks were killed.  State acquiescence to false flag attacks upon their own citizens seems to be a requirement of all participants in America’s terror war, a pattern set by the example of the US Govt. itself on 9-11-2001 (SEE:  US/NATO Seeking Escape Mechanism for New Formula for Imperial Aggression).  The “war on terror,” a.k.a., “plan for Greater Middle East,” is a Pentagon operation, from the beginning, intended to unleash the power of NATO through a series of wars of aggression, without upsetting the American image in the world.  In this way, the US military can utilize its power to the fullest, even violating the nuclear threshold, without turning the world against us.  Now, all that is left is for NATO forces to be successfully brought to bear in Syria, squaring the circle, without making us the “bad guys” against a global “Arab Spring.”  NATO is still perfecting the mechanism which will enable them to reliably use “false-flag operations” to create “fault-free” wars of aggression, attacking yourself, to obtain the right to defend yourself, from yourself.]    

Israel says Syrian mortar strike was attack on NATO

PARIS (Reuters) – Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor said on Thursday a deadly Syrian mortar strike on a Turkish town had to be considered an attack on a member of the NATO alliance.
Israel is technically at war with Damascus and occupies the Golan Heights that it seized in the 1967 war and later annexed, but it has generally taken a cautious line on the uprising in its Arab neighbor.

“One has to say that according to the NATO treaty, it was an attack on a member of NATO, and that means France,” Meridor told reporters during a visit to Paris, referring to France’s membership of NATO.

Syria and Israel have not exchanged fire in three decades, and a parliamentary briefing in July by the Israeli armed forces chief about the risk of “uncontrollable deterioration” in Syria were interpreted by local media as a caution against opening a new fighting front with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Meridor said he did not want to go into details about the incident but said the deaths in Syria had to end.

“Syria is in a horrible situation, a civil war. Each day men, women and children are being killed and it must be stopped,” Meridor said after meeting France’s foreign and defense ministers.

“We are in a process that isn’t finished. We don’t see the end for now.”

Turkey’s government on Thursday said “aggressive action” against its territory by Syria’s military had become a serious threat to its national security and parliament approved the deployment of Turkish troops beyond its borders if needed.

Immediately after the incident, Ankara, which has the second-largest army in NATO, called a meeting of the organization’s North Atlantic Council.

Syria has apologized through the United Nations for the mortar strike in Turkey and said such an incident would not be repeated.

Israel has been particularly worried that Hezbollah, the Iranian-inspired Shiite militia in neighboring Lebanon, may gain access to the chemical weapons should Assad’s grip slip amid a 18-month-old insurgency.

Assad, from the minority Alawite sect, considered an offshoot of Shia Islam, has close ties both with Shi’ite Iran and Hezbollah, which was originally set up to oppose Israel.

“The alliance with Iran is extremely worrying (for us). Iran on one side, Hezbollah on the other, with Syria in the middle. For us, it’s very important that this unholy alliance is broken,” Meridor said.

“If the Assad regime were to fall, it would be a vital strike on Iran,” he said.

(Reporting By John Irish)