Interview: As Western Hegemony Declines, U.S. Attempts to Recreate Arab Spring in Asia

August 17, 2021 (Brian Berletic - The New Atlas) - I recently did an interview with Geopolitics & Conflict. In it we discuss my background briefly, then dive into the decades-long attempt by the US to establish global hegemony, the encirclement strategy it has used against adversaries like Russia and China, and how both the 2011 Arab Spring and now an "Asia Spring" were explicitly parts of executing this strategy. 

The link to the interview is here. Please see more Geopolitics & Conflict here. 

Interview by Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire

December 20, 2020 (Brian Berletic - LD) - It was my pleasure to appear on 21st Century Wire's first Live show (they have many recorded interviews and shows here). 

We discuss my background as "Tony Cartalucci," US soft power around the globe, US-backed "color revolutions" past and present including here in Thailand where I am based, as well as where the US is going from here in its great power game with nations like China and Iran. 

21st Century Wire has helped share my articles for many years when I wrote anonymously under the pen name Tony Cartalucci - and hopefully this is the first of many interviews and video collaborations I will be doing with them in the future now that I'm out in the open. Like and share the video if you thought it was useful and think about subscribing to 21st Century Wire to catch new videos when they are published. 

US Now Overtly Supports MKO's Terrorist Operations

Land Destroyer interview by Kourosh Ziabaria, published by Iran Review. 

Iran Review
Interview with Tony Cartalucci
By: Kourosh Ziabari


In a flagrant show of hostility toward the Iranian nation and a clear exercise of double standards in dealing with international terrorism, the U.S. Department of State has just removed the name of Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO) from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. MKO which was established on September 5, 1965 is a terrorist cult which assisted Saddam Hussein in the 1980s war with Iran and killed more than 40,000 innocent Iranian civilians. It's also responsible for the assassination of several high-ranking Iranian officials in the first years of Islamic Revolution and also 5 Iranian nuclear scientists since 2010.
 
The U.S. government claimed that MKO has not been involved in any terrorist operation in the past 10 years and thus its designation as a foreign terrorist organization should be revoked. This hostile decision by the U.S. government is obviously an attempt aimed at putting more pressure on Iran over its nuclear program with the final objective of persuading Iran to make political concessions. However, the high-ranking MKO officials have constantly declared that their final objective is a regime change in Iran. The Council of the European Union had removed the name of MKO from the EU's list of terrorist organizations in 2009.
 
In order to delve on the removal of MKO's name from the list of foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. Department of State and its underlying reasons, Iran Review conducted an interview with American journalist and researcher Tony Caralucci.
 
Tony Cartalucci, is an independent geopolitical researcher based in Bangkok, Thailand. He maintains the Land Destroyer Report blog and is regularly republished across the alternative media. His work has also appeared translated in newspapers from Europe and the Middle East, to Asia and South America. He is currently co-authoring a book with geopolitical analyst and photographer Nile Bowie, titled, "Subverting Syria" available through Progressive Press. 
Cartalucci is one of the informed American sources about the underground activities of the MKO and has written an elaborate article in this regard for the Global Research. What follows is the text of Iran Review's interview with Tony Cartalucci which was conducted a few days after the U.S. delisted MKO and provoked anger and astonishment across Iran.
 
Q: Dear Tony; please tell us about the proofs and evidence which are available and attest that the United States and Israel have been funding, equipping and supporting MKO in its anti-Iran operations. I think Seymour Hersh and Glenn Greenwald have extensively written in this regard. Am I right?
 
A: I am most familiar with Seymour Hersh's reports. Seymour Hersh, citing those directly involved in U.S. programs to fund, arm, provide intelligence and even training to MKO terrorists, has reported extensively on the group over the years. In 2008, he published an article titled, "Preparing the Battlefield," and revealed that MKO, still on the U.S. State Department Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list at the time, was receiving "arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly from the United States." In a 2012 article Hersh published, titled, "Our Men in Iran?" he reveals that MKO terrorists were actually trained inside the United States as far back as 2002.
 
Hersh's 2012 article also reveals that MKO terrorists have been working with Israel in carrying out their attacks within Iran, meaning that while Israel now attempts to convince the world that Iran poses a threat to its existence, Israel itself has been violating the security of Iran for over a decade, carrying out attacks that have killed Iranians and destroyed Iranian infrastructure.
 
Similar admissions have been made in articles published by the British press. One article from the Daily Mail titled "Mossad Training Terrorists to Kill Iran's Nuclear Scientists, U.S. Officials Claim," states that U.S. officials "confirmed" that Israel was behind the MKO terrorists that killed several of Iran's nuclear scientists.
 
But perhaps the most damning evidence of all, comes from U.S. policy makers themselves, particularly from within the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution in their 2009 report, "Which Path to Persia?" where they fully admit MKO is a terrorist organization. Brookings policy makers stated explicitly that "undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks," yet MKO was still being considered as a viable "potential U.S. proxy." Brookings added that, "to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations." And that is just what U.S. politicians, former U.S. military and intelligence officers, and policy makers set out to do, lobby to get MKO delisted from the U.S. State Department's FTO list.
 
At one point, during the closing phases of America's occupation of Iraq, the U.S. literally handed over one of its military bases, "Camp Liberty," to MKO. The U.S. State Department played a leading role in organizing this handover, again, despite the U.S. State Department itself having the militant group listed on its own foreign terrorist list.
 
There is no doubt that the United States was for over a decade, using a listed-terrorist organization as an armed proxy against the nation of Iran as part of a wider strategy to destabilize, manipulate, and terrorize its population. This was all done in direct violation of U.S. and international anti-terror laws and understandings. Now that MKO is delisted, we can only expect this support and MKO operations to expand.



 
Q: What's your assessment of the U.S. Department of State taking MKO off the list of foreign terrorist organizations? Will this decision help the MKO militants to foster and promote their terrorist operations across Iran and further their plans of destabilizing Iran under the guise of a civilian, peaceful organization?
 
A: The sole purpose of the U.S. State Department delisting MKO was not because the organization has "reformed" itself in any way or abandoned its terroristic posture, but specifically for the U.S. to foster and promote their terrorist operations across Iran in a more overt manner, just as was prescribed by Brookings policy makers. It was the fulfillment of just one of many long-planned steps toward further destabilizing Iran.
 
That it occurred during the presidential administration of Barack Obama is important - it illustrates that the West's agenda is singular and continuous, independent of elections and the alleged political ideologies of sitting presidents. What began as part of the Bush "War on Terror" was carried out to completion under Obama, with the explicit support of his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. That policy seems to manifest itself first in corporate-financier funded think tanks like Brookings before being rubber stamped by politicians and sold to the public by the media, gives us a clearer picture of the West's true power structure and helps us understand better what that true power structure has in store for Iran in the future.
 
In regards to how MKO will be portrayed to the public, it is unlikely that the organization will exist under the guise of a "civilian, peaceful organization," but rather will continue a more covert campaign of violence and subversion inside Iran and along its peripheries. The West, because MKO is now delisted, can simply be more liberal in regards to funding and arming it, but will do so still very much out of the view of an easily distracted American public.
 
If and when the West succeeds at triggering wide scale unrest and/or violence within Iran itself, MKO may be introduced as an armed "pro-democracy" movement just as terrorists operating in Syria have been by the West. MKO's Paris-based political wing will then be merged into a Western stable of "transitional leaders," just as has been set up during the Western destabilization of Libya and Syria.
 
Q: It was on the reports that MKO had invested a great amount of money in lobbying efforts to convince the U.S. government to remove its name from the list of terrorist organizations. Many high-ranking U.S. officials, including the governors of different states, Congressmen and former CIA officials had also supported their bid. Would you please explain more about this?
 
A: I believe the story of the MKO paying out large amounts of cash to U.S. politicians, former military officers, and lobbyists was an attempt to conceal what is in reality a decades-long conspiracy to use the group as an armed proxy against Iran. By portraying MKO's American lobbyists as merely financially motivated, the true nature of their duplicity and betrayal to the American people, as well as their true motives, have been obfuscated. Of course, it is the United States that is funding MKO in the first place. Are we then expected to believe they are taking this money and sending it right back to America to lobby for their delisting? Of course not, it was a combination of theater and formalities to preserve in the eyes of stakeholders in the West's international order, a semblance of "rule of law."
 
What many may not know about MKO's American lobbyists is that many of these men have been the most vocal proponents of the "War on Terror." This includes former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, former FBI director Louis Freeh, retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark, Lee Hamilton who in fact chaired the 9/11 Commission, and finally, former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant and former-National Security Adviser to President Obama, General James Jones. 
 
It is difficult to fathom why these men, who have built their political careers on decrying terrorism, would come out to support MKO, especially Generals Clark and Jones, when considering MKO has killed U.S. citizens, including 3 high ranking U.S. military officers. MKO had also attempted to kidnap a U.S. ambassador and attempted to assassinate a U.S. Air Force brigadier general.
 
While one might claim MKO has reformed their ways, even Brookings policy makers seeking to further utilize the organization recognized that they are undoubtedly still involved in terrorism. Such overt, reckless abandonment of even the semblance of "rule of law," with the U.S. State Department, former civilian and military leaders all brazenly violating their own nation's laws while simultaneously charged with upholding them, threatens to plunge the entire nation into a crisis of credibility - one that seems to already be having a negative, impeding effect on Western foreign and domestic policy.
 
Despite America's attempt at window dressing, with the lobbying and the official "delisting" of MKO, what we have left is still an alleged "Western democracy" funding, arming, and encouraging a terrorist organization.
 
Q: The U.S. Department of State claimed that the Mujahedin-e-Khalq have not been involved in terrorist operations during the past 10 years. Is this true? Many Iranians firmly believe that the hands of MKO are stained with the blood of five Iranian nuclear scientists in the past two years. Why has the U.S. government ignored and overlooked these atrocities?
 
A: If the U.S. State Department has claimed MKO has not been involved in terrorist operations during the past 10 years, it may be worth investigating the most recent definition of what the U.S. government claims "terrorist operations" are.
For example, the US State Department's criteria for listing a group as a terrorist organization now states that the organization must, among other things, threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States. In the past 10 years, MKO does not appear to have attacked any U.S. targets, though, according to the U.S. government's own definition of what constitutes terrorist activity, MKO is still most certainly engaged in terrorist operations against other nations. Again, U.S. policy makers themselves not only concede this fact, but seek to delist MKO specifically so it can expand its terrorist operations. U.S. officials have openly admitted that MKO, and indeed, even Israel, were both behind the assassinations of Iran's scientists.
 
Clearly U.S. policy is underpinned by law written entirely for convenience, free of any enduring, objective principle of justice. These laws betray absolutely the spirit in which the vast majority of Americans believe they were written in when they were first passed. This convenient legal circumvention of America's principles says a lot about the current state of so-called Western "democracy" we are meant to believe is a morally superior standard to which the entire world must be held.
 
Q: Doesn't the decision made by the U.S. government show some kind of a duplicitous and hypocritical approach toward the issue of terrorism? After all, there's credible evidence showing that MKO has been involved in several assassination attempts and other violent actions. How does Washington justify this move?
 
A: Washington, for the time being is not really trying to justify this move, but on the most superficial level, at least publicly. Privately, the corporate-financier interests that dictate Washington's policy have long since justified it as a simple matter of utility and "might makes right." In other words, in regards to Washington, it is not a topic that will receive much public exposure across the Western media, and it will not be discussed often by Washington's politicians.
 
MKO's activity will remain more or less clandestine in nature - because despite the delisting, they still fully intend to carry out blatant acts of terrorism against Iran - acts that regardless of their legal status in the U.S. won't and can't be publicized. A similar regiment of selective reporting can be seen at work with the West's destabilization of Syria, and with the various terrorist organizations it is supporting there.
 
Even if the West succeeds at triggering widespread violence and destabilization across Iran, whatever MKO is rolled into, perhaps the "Free Iranian Army," its terroristic history, the American blood staining its hands, and its atrocities against the civilian population of Iran both past and present will not be discussed by the Western media.
 
A similar campaign of perception management surrounded Libyan terrorists NATO had funded, armed, trained, and even provided air support for during the Western orchestrated overthrow of the Libyan government in 2011. We were told that these were "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters," when in reality they were the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), not only a listed U.S. foreign terrorist organization, but listed by the UK as a proscribed terrorist group, and as an official affiliate of Al Qaeda by the United Nations itself.  Rarely is LIFG mentioned in the Western media, and when it is, not many details are provided for readers unaware of its history. We can expect MKO to be treated in a similar fashion.
 
Q: Do you know of other cases that the U.S. government has made concessions and compromised its stance with regards to terrorist groups in order to pressure a foreign country with which it has been at odds? Overall, I want to know your idea about the U.S. double standards in regards to terrorism when it comes to groups such as MKO.
 
A: U.S. double standards exist only in the realm of public opinion. Behind closed doors, U.S. policy makers have a single standard - that of utility. The utility of a particular personality or group takes precedence over all other considerations. Public perception is often an afterthought, and as described previously, generally is handled by keeping the public in the dark about the true nature of America's chosen proxies.
 
U.S. support of MKO is but one of many examples of this. As mentioned before, the U.S. has provided significant aid to Libya's LIFG, which has in fact shifted many of its fighters and NATO-supplied weapons into Syria to wage the West's proxy war there against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
 
What many readers may not know is that LIFG and its various incarnations, has received, on record, support from British MI6 and America's CIA for over 30 years, with the violence in Libya last year, and LIFG's operations in Syria this year, being only the latest chapter in a long partnership with the West.
 
LIFG fighters were in the Afghan mountains in the 1980's during the inception of the joint U.S.-Saudi terror front, Al Qaeda - yet another example of American-made and subsidized terrorism.
 
Sectarian extremists operating in Lebanon against Hezbollah, terrorists in Pakistan's Baluchistan province, Jundallah, and extremists operating in Russia's Caucasus region, are all examples of the U.S. supporting terrorist organizations to target and carry out violence against nations to either exact concessions or regime change.
 
It really isn't that the West's leadership is betraying their principles - they clearly have no such principles. Instead, what we are seeing is the West attempting to dress up its agenda and methods to legitimize what is clearly unacceptable behavior the West's respective populations would otherwise never tolerate. 
 
Q: And finally, what should be Iran's response to this hostile decision made by the U.S. government? MKO has assassinated several high-ranking Iranian officials in the first years of Islamic Revolution, including former President, Prime Minister and judiciary chief, and several nuclear scientists in the recent years. Should Iran file a lawsuit against MKO in an international court?
 
A: This is a difficult but important question to answer. Iran's government, its military and intelligence networks in particular, are in the best position to know the true impact of MKO's activities and what capabilities they themselves possess with which to counter these activities. Raising public awareness both at home and abroad of who the MKO is and what they are doing would be a good start.
 
It is important to warn the public, police, and security forces regarding the tactics MKO terrorists employ - not only currently, but what their role will be if ever the West succeeds at triggering widespread unrest across Iran. It is very likely that MKO terrorists are already prepared to ignite violence at protests staged by Western-backed opposition groups. Just as the West has done against Syria, initially peaceful protests are targeted by Western-affiliated and trained gunmen, operating clandestinely from cover, targeting both their own protesters and security forces to ignite cascading violence. The resulting escalating violence will provide cover, just as it has done in Syria, for foreign militants to infiltrate and begin full-scale military operations against the government and its people. 
 
Second, like any dangerous pest, it is necessary not only to simply swat at it when it draws near, but to identify the source from which it was spawned, and eliminate it. In MKO's case, it has bases inside of Iraq. Working closer with Iraqi security forces to eliminate these bases would be a good start. Additionally, Iran, Russia, and China have been working together to create a united front against these clandestine organizations, and appropriately labeling them as terrorists. Expanding this effort and working with other nations suffering from covert destabilization to develop the tools to protect national sovereignty is also very important.
 
Currently, the greatest advantage the West has is a general state of global ignorance regarding the mechanics of covert destabilization and regime change, namely the use of foreign-funded NGOs, terror organizations, and foreign-backed opposition groups to strip away national sovereignty. A united front determined to raise awareness of these mechanics, while developing the operational capacity to counter them would steal from the West the cloak of secrecy and impunity they have operated behind for so long.
 
Finally, whether Iran files a lawsuit against MKO in an international court or not, depends on which court is being considered. It may be worth investigating the creation of an international court that exists beyond the influence of Western corporate-financier interests. For example, the International Criminal Court has been exposed many times as but a tool for executing Western foreign policy. To approach the ICC for any reason but to condemn its lack of integrity and legitimacy, only serves to perpetuate its existence and standings amongst global public opinion.

Western Narrative on Syria is Crumbling

Land Destroyer interview by Kourosh Ziabaria, published by Tehran Times.

Tehran Times
Kourosh Ziabari
September 26, 2012

A U.S. journalist says the United States and its allies are taking serious steps to launch a military strike against Syria.

“We can expect to see the mechanisms at play in undermining, dividing, and destroying Syria next turned on Lebanon and Iran if and when critical mass can be reached to topple Syria's government,” said Tony Cartalucci in a recent interview with the Tehran Times.

Cartalucci, who is based in Bangkok, Thailand, writes for different news websites including Global Research and Activist Post and is currently co-authoring a book with geopolitical analyst and photographer Nile Bowie, titled, “Subverting Syria” available through Progressive Press.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: You've written on unrest in Syria extensively. The opponents of the government of President Assad claim that his government has resorted to violence and killed many protesters and civilians, while the Damascus says that certain Western countries are providing the insurgents with weapons and money. Please comment over this. 

A: The violence began from the very beginning of the so-called demonstrations. There were undoubtedly well-intentioned demonstrators in the streets. Unfortunately, many of the organizations that gathered them had very sinister intentions. 

Acts of vandalism, arson, and assault were being reported by even Western news agencies by March of 2011. This, by necessity, would bring armed security forces onto the streets in any country -- as was the case in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots. In LA, the protesters were more lightly armed, and the overwhelming presence of thousands of National Guard soldiers and Marines quelled the violence in days. Still government forces killed several people, and in total 53 would die in the violence. 

The difference in Syria is that the unrest was designed to be sustained and increasingly violent. To introduce this increasing cycle of violence, third party groups began targeting unsuspecting protesters as well as security forces charged with minding the protesters. These “mystery gunmen,” usually firing from rooftops, were reported not only by official Syrian government reports, but also by protesters and bystanders. The goal was to radicalize protesters and justify increasing violence and its subsequent support by Western backers.

We saw the same thing happen in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010 where these “mystery gunmen” targeted both protesters and security forces from the rooftops in an attempt to spike the violence and increase the stakes. In Bangkok, as in Syria, deadly crossfire would ensue, giving opposition groups and their foreign sponsors the propaganda they needed to demonize the government, while attempting to justify an increasingly militant opposition.

Now, without a doubt, this violence has escalated to the point where combat operations are being carried out by organized foreign-backed militant groups. The U.S., Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have all made outright admissions of supporting the funding, logistics, and arming of these militants. What is evident is that the West and the Persian Gulf States have also illegally entered Syria with “journalists” serving as embedded propagandists. What is neither admitted, nor overtly evident, but most certain, is that special operations from NATO and the Persian Gulf are on the ground inside of Syria along with agents of their respective intelligence agencies. 

This tactical environment was exactly what the West was seeking, and was the goal of covert violence in early 2011, and well as the gradual increase of arms and fighters sent into the crisis. 

Q: Some political commentators say attack on Syria will be a prelude to an all-out military strike against Iran. Your views. 

A: Commentators are saying this precisely because it is written in nearly 10 years of U.S. policy papers. Citing some examples, there is the 2007 Seymour Hersh piece in the New Yorker titled, “The Redirection.” Hersh's conclusion that the U.S. was attempting to undermine Syria as a means of subsequently undermining and executing regime change in Iran wasn't one he drew himself, it was an enumerated policy that members of the  Bush administration had relayed to him; a policy that already at the time had been set in motion. 

In 2009 in the Brookings Institution's “Which Path to Persia?” report, Syria is again mentioned as a necessary factor that must be neutralized before proceeding on to Iran. The document details the use of violent, listed-terrorist organizations to undermine Iran, namely MKO, means of provoking a war with Iran it neither wants nor will benefit from, and mitigating perceived U.S. complicity if Israel were to strike Iran. While all of these strategies, in the 2009 report, are directed against Iran, we see many of them now playing out against Syria. 

With this in mind, we can expect to see the mechanisms at play in undermining, dividing, and destroying Syria next turned on Lebanon and Iran if and when critical mass can be reached to topple Syria's government. Also, an interesting reoccurring theme in Brookings' “Which Path to Persia?” report is how the U.S. can lure Iran into an armed conflict. The destruction of Syria seems to be a potential means of doing this, though Iran has been very careful and adept at avoiding this pitfall.  

The West lacks the political capital at home and abroad to launch an attack on Iran. An attack would unify the Iranian people further, is estimated to have little chance of destroying Iran's civil nuclear program or setting back Iran's armed forces, and leaves open the possibility that Iran may not even retaliate -- this in order to accentuate the moral depravity of an unprovoked Western act of military aggression. Without the West committing to total war, something they can neither justify, nor politically afford, Iran will continue to exist as a growing and enduring countervailing force in the Middle East. 

The West is undoubtedly seeking to undermine Iran politically, socially, morally, economically, as well as destroy it militarily. Doing this however, is becoming increasingly complicated. Even the prospect of justifying an “invasion” using a catastrophic false-flag event is waning as global public awareness of such a plot grows. The bus bombing in Bulgaria that was immediately blamed on Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah -- even before the flames were extinguished -- was met globally by doubt, even indignation at the U.S. and Israel's rushed, dubious, and politically-motivated accusations. 

As the conflict in Syria drags on, regional shareholders in Western hegemony, namely the (P)GCC and Turkey, may want to begin divesting in this losing strategy and preparing to co-exist with Iran. When that begins to happen, the prospect of a successful attack or invasion of Iran will become even more unlikely.  

Q: Have you noted that the recent UN report on Syria published when Kofi Annan was the UN-Arab League envoy to Syria was produced by a number of people who have certain neoconservative attitudes and were allied with the reactionary monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Who has selected these people to provide reports on Syria? 

A: Representatives of Western corporate-financier interests are pervasive throughout the United Nations. Kofi Annan himself is a trustee of the Fortune 500-funded International Crisis Group and a member of the JP Morgan International Council along with many of the very engineers of Syria's current unrest. Likewise, a 2011 UN Human Rights Council report, and the most recent August 2012 “expert panel” report regarding Syria have been compiled by a commission headed by Karen Koning Abu Zayd, a director of the Washington-based Middle East Policy Council. Indeed, Exxon, the Saudi Bin Laden Group, former ambassadors to (P)GCC members, the CIA, the U.S. military, and combines representing the collective interests of Al Jazeera, Boeing, Chevron and many more all have representation on the board of directors next to Mrs. Abu Zayd. 

These people are “selected” by the UN members that dominate its various councils -- and of course the collection of corporate-financier interests that dominate each respective member. The largest corporations on Earth, emanating from Wall Street and London clearly stack initiatives with their own people, thus habitually undermining both the credibility and authority of the UN. 

Clearly, not only does an immense conflict of interest exist with the appointments of Kofi Annan or Kraen Koning Abu Zayd, but immense improprieties arise with them. For the latest UN report on “war crimes” carried out by the Syrian government, we are once again treated to “interviews,” many of which were not even conducted inside of Syria, but in Geneva, Switzerland. And who was interviewed? Opponents of the government, alleged defectors, and so on. 

It is not that interviews like this have no value. However, interviews alone do not make a case. They make a starting point for a real investigation, an investigation Abu Zayd's commission failed to conduct. And because she failed to conduct a proper investigation, the result of her “interviews” is a report fit for propaganda value only; propaganda immediately capitalized on by the West for several news cycles and will be continue to be cited for dramatic effect until Abu Zayd's next performance. 

Q: What's your viewpoint regarding the role of Iran in resolving the Syrian crisis? You have praised Iran's initiative in hosting 30 countries in a consultative meeting over Syria. Is Iran capable of neutralizing the efforts made by the United States and its allies in isolating Syria?

A: As the conflict drags on and the West increases the cost its shareholders must pay for what appears to be a losing strategy, it will benefit these shareholders to consider divesting from Western hegemony and consider a multipolar co-existence with each other and with Iran.

Iran, by providing a forum for some 30 nations representing around half the world's population, shows that it -- contrary to Western propaganda -- is not interested in unilaterally exerting its influence. By recognizing the need for reform in Syria, but recognizing the current violence is a manifestation of foreign terrorism, not rebellion, the 30-nation International Consultative Conference on Syria seeks to provide a sheltered forum for genuine parties in Syria to resolve the conflict. 

In theory, this was the intention of the UN and Kofi Annan. Annan's actions along with his affiliations attempted to undermine these efforts from the very beginning, however, and the UN has proven to be entirely compromised. Iran, by organizing this meeting, is attempting to create a true multipolar alternative to the UN in regards to Syria. Iran, Russia, and others, with true geopolitical acumen, seek non-invasive measures to solve Syria outside the UN, while the U.S. and its combine attempt to justify acts of military aggression beyond any semblance of international law. 

As far as neutralizing efforts by the West to isolate Syria, it is working. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) intends to further undermine efforts to isolate Syria in the court of public opinion and give alternative options to shareholders currently entangled in the West's unraveling assault. 

Of course, this is a good first step, but ultimately to stop the foreign subversion of Syria, the weapons, cash, and foreign fighters flowing over Syria's borders must be stopped. Hopefully, Iran's efforts in breaking Syria's isolation can lead to growing international condemnation of the West's funding of foreign terrorists, a necessary first step in implementing further measures to politically and physically block foreign intrusion. 

Q: The Non-Aligned Movement summit was just concluded in Tehran and high-ranking officials from 120 member states as well as UN chief Ban Ki-moon attended the event. What's your view regarding the efforts made by Israel and United States to undermine the summit and dissuading the world leaders and Ban Ki-moon from attending?

A: It is clear that the entire Western narrative in regards to Syria is crumbling. The use of Israel to attempt to “shame” UN chief Ban Ki-moon from attending the 2012 NAM conference smacks of desperation. The idea is to undermine both NAM and its leading members, more specifically Iran, Russia, and China, who have consistently opposed efforts to divide and destroy Syria. This too, seems to be a losing strategy for the West. 

For example, the last UN General Assembly vote on Syria came with some telling results. A growing number of nations are beginning to abstain or skip votes on resolutions proposed by the West and laundered through the (P)GCC. This included India who may now be realizing the U.S. has only interests, not friends, and the destabilization Syria suffers today can easily be on any one of India's borders as well as deep within them. Sustainable economic prosperity and progress, not to mention viable self-preservation, comes only from stability at home and abroad. Stability does not preclude reform, but requires that it is done sensibly, peacefully, and incrementally. 

I believe many nations are beginning to realize that by promoting violent subversion abroad, they are further enabling its use against them at home, and are now shying away from further enabling the West's methodology. I think the Persian Gulf states in particular are really starting to understand this in recent months. 

Q: In one of your articles, you had pointed out some self-censored facts and truths which the Western mainstream media hide about Saudi Arabia, including the fact that women are not allowed to drive, the world's foremost terrorist organization Al-Qaeda is a furtive ally of the Saudi government, the political prisoners are brutally tortured, etc. However, the United States, which constantly preaches human rights and values of Western democracy to other nations, has never protested these flagrant violations of human rights in the Arab nation. Why?

A: Corporate-financier interests in the U.S. spend an inordinate amount of money and time investing in NGOs that promote “human rights.” This is not because they believe in human rights, but because it is a convenient point of political leverage when attempting to mobilize public opinion against its geopolitical adversaries. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy, and many more are all funded and headed by some of the most notorious advocates for war and atrocities, and contrary to what one would expect, many of these characters are card-carrying Neo-Conservatives. 

Consequently, this point of political leverage is only used when geopolitical interests are in play, while an otherwise “media black-hole” forms around notorious human rights violators like Saudi Arabia who currently serves and is entwined with U.S. interests. Another good example of this is how the U.S. is leveraging “human rights” against Syria while U.S.-backed, deposed Thai PM Thaksin Shinawatra is currently on tour of the U.S. People might remember his notorious 2003 “War on Drugs” which saw over 2,800 people killed extra-judicially over the course of 90 days. 

However, this doesn't mean extensive catalogs of atrocities aren't being compiled against the Persian Gulf states. On the contrary, just as was the case with Saddam Hussein who committed his most egregious atrocities with both U.S. support and an arsenal made possible by U.S. arms dealers, the Persian Gulf States will be retroactively convicted when, not if, the time comes. 

The “human rights” racket maintained by the U.S. State Department is not only a form of political extortion, it also undermines real human rights advocacy, leading many well-intentioned people toward a false sense of security, falsely believing “someone” is watching. 

The eradication of Libya's Africans, particularly the emptying out of the entire city of Tawarga, exemplifies this better than any other recent example. Here, Fortune 500-funded Refugees International, recorded the atrocities that took place in Tawarga, and instead of using its immense influence to make it headline news, it merely published a YouTube video that garnered a few hundred views. Why? Because the militants that committed the atrocities now form the NATO-backed government in Tripoli. 

The same can be said of U.S. support for state sponsorship of terrorism. These are tools clearly at their disposal and moral objections to such tactics are for public consumption only. 

Q: In another article, you wrote that BBC has just received a considerable amount of money from the U.S. Congress to launch media attacks on the independent, non-aligned countries such as Iran and Cuba. What's your viewpoint toward BBC's and other mainstream media outlets' coverage of Iran affairs? Isn't their attitude toward Iran some kind of a misinformation and propaganda campaign?

A: The BBC, along with a myriad of other news agencies and pseudo-news NGOs are all underwritten and representative of the West's corporate-financier interests. Powerful interests buying up media to control public perception is a reoccurring theme throughout the history of the printed and now broadcast word.

These corporate-financier interests, many familiar Fortune 500 companies, fund the think-tanks that produce both national policy and daily talking points for the evening news. These are disseminated to politicians for approval and to the desks of large corporate news networks to then be presented to the public. What's worse, is that many of these news organizations share representation amongst the very think-tanks producing policy and their corresponding talking points. At face value, there are already tremendous conflicts of interest at play.  

So clearly, if corporate-financier interests seek to undermine and eliminate those opposing their global geopolitical-economic hegemony, they will use the media houses they own to spread propaganda. The BBC is guilty of many very high profile incidents of outright fraud and misrepresentation, but it is their daily, and very persistent dissembling that gradually poisons the perception of Western audiences against nations like Syria and Iran. 

Iran, no matter what it does in reality, will be portrayed by the West as a belligerent, irrational, and backwards threat to humanity. Increasing public awareness and alternative media's successful challenging of the corporate-media's monopoly has eroded the effectiveness of this propaganda. Additionally, Iran's own very persistent efforts to counter this propaganda, not only through the skillful use of its own media organizations, but through its own actions both at home and abroad, have also helped hobble the West's perception management.

The biggest impetus for war is public ignorance. Organizations like the BBC work ceaselessly to maintain and compound that ignorance. Nonetheless, as ignorance fades in the information age, so do the prospects of habitual warmongers. 

Q: What do you think about the assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists? The families of the victims have just filed a lawsuit against Israel's Mossad, UK's MI6 and America's CIA for their possible role in the killings. What's your viewpoint? 

A: The U.S. and Israel have tacitly admitted they were behind the assassinations. They openly admit they are training, funding, arming, and regularly deploying the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MKO). U.S. politicians openly lobby for MKO in full-page columns bought in large U.S. papers. It would interest many Americans to know that many of these lobbyists include stalwart supporters of the so-called “War on Terror,” including Rudy Giuliani, Ed Rendell, Tom Ridge, and even former-USMC Commandant James Jones. Americans should note that their own U.S. State Department lists MKO as a foreign terrorist organization.

It would also interest Americans to know exactly why MKO is listed as a terrorist organization. It had carried out a series of terrorist attacks not only in Iran against Iranians, but there was also the attempted kidnapping of U.S. Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.    

The Brookings Institution in their 2009 report, “Which Path to Persia?” admits, “undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks” including attacks on civilian targets. To this day, MKO is considered even by its own supporters in Washington, a “cult-like organization” with “totalitarian tendencies.” 

And like the West's double standards regarding human rights, its policy on state sponsorship of terrorism is determined by convenience and opportunism. In other words, the U.S. is using terrorists against its enemies while accusing its enemies, in many cases, of supporting the very militants it has armed and funded. 

And indeed, had Iran assassinated U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, immediate war would break out. In fact, false-flag events running along this theme, most notably the alleged “assassination plot” against a Saudi diplomat allegedly masterminded by Iran which turned out to be yet another patsy led along by US federal agents, were tried but failed. 

The MKO will continue its terrorist activities with or without a spot on the U.S. State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It was reported in March 2012 that MKO was handed by the U.S. State Department, control a former U.S. military base in Iraq to operate out of, this being with MKO currently on the U.S. State Department's own terror list.

It appears that laws in the U.S. and across Europe are vestiges of an age where rule-of-law, or at least a semblance of it, prevailed. Those days are over. Whether the West's abandonment of its own rule-of-laws has created the current undermining of its global legitimacy, or its declining legitimacy allowed it to discard its own laws is debatable. What is certain is that the West's current foreign policy and agenda is unhinged both from its own population's approval and any sense of legitimacy.