Break Them Up to Make Them Powerless and Thus Much Easier to Control: Mike Whitney
Here's the key take away from this excellent analysis well worth reading entirely:
“What is happening in Iraq today was anticipated in a 2007 Seymour Hersh article titled “The Redirection.” Author Tony Cartalucci gives a great summary of the piece in his own article. He says:
“The Redirection,” documents…US, Saudi, and Israeli intentions to create and deploy sectarian extremists region-wide to confront Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hersh would note that these “sectarian extremists” were either tied to Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda itself. The ISIS army moving toward Baghdad is the final manifestation of this conspiracy, a standing army operating with impunity, threatening to topple the Syrian government, purge pro-Iranian forces in Iraq, and even threatening Iran itself by building a bridge from Al Qaeda’s NATO safe havens in Turkey, across northern Iraq, and up to Iran’s borders directly… It is a defacto re-invasion of Iraq by Western interests – but this time without Western forces directly participating – rather a proxy force the West is desperately attempting to disavow any knowledge of or any connection to.” (America’s Covert Re-Invasion of Iraq, Tony Cartalucci, Information Clearinghouse)
So, now we’re getting to the crux of the matter, right? Now we should be able to identify the policy that is guiding events. What we know for sure is that the US wants to break Iran’s grip on Iraq. But how do they plan to achieve that; that’s the question? Well, they could use their old friends the Baathists who they’ve been in touch with since 2007. That might work. But then they’d have to add a few jihadis to the mix to make it look believable. Okay. But does that mean that Obama is actively supporting Isis? No, not necessarily. Isis is already connected to other Intel agencies and might not need direct support from the US. (Note: Many analysts have stated that the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) receives generous donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of whom are staunch US allies. According to London’s Daily Express: “through allies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the West (has) supported militant rebel groups which have since mutated into ISIS and other al‑Qaeda connected militias. ( Daily Telegraph, June 12, 2014)
What’s important as far as Obama is concerned, is that the strategic objectives of Isis and those of the United States coincide. Both entities seek greater political representation for Sunnis, both want to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq, and both support a soft partition plan that former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie H. Gelb, called “The only viable strategy to correct (Iraq ‘s) historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.” This is why Obama hasn’t attacked the militia even though it has marched to within 50 miles of Baghdad. It’s because the US benefits from these developments.”
Using a Q&A format to summarize, Whitney concludes at the end of his summary:
“Is Obama’s reluctance to launch an attack on Isis indicate that he wants to diminish Iran’s power in Iraq, redraw the map of the Middle East, and create politically powerless regions run by warlords and tribal leaders?
Yes, yes and yes.”
Indeed. But we believe this is really the model for what is really a globalist (1 per center) strategy of partitioning every large region into smaller regions to render every large region in the world powerless, enabling the removal of barriers to One Large Dominant Trans-National Governing Entity to control the entire planet. It is the central strategy of the 1% of the 1% (who don't give a bleep about the national interests of where they were born or where they own homes) with which they are planning to apply not only to the rest of the world, but especially the United States. Successful US state secession movements, for example, which may on the surface appear to be welcome initiatives of liberation from Wall Street and Washington DC, will play a key role in radically amplifying the power and control of the Wall St-DC-London Nexus, which will enjoy little or weak resistance to their efforts at aggressively and tyrannically dominating one breakaway US region at a time.
That is, a broken-up United States will be comprised of regions preoccupied with fighting the Wall St/DC Nexus without benefit of support from other regions, who will themselves be fighting a losing war against the Nexus for the same reasons. Independent US regions, disunited from the rest of the states, could no longer leverage help or support they could expect to get from other regions in a united states normally operating within the framework of a constitutional republic the rules for which are applied to all 50 states as one nation. In addition, even if stronger break-away regions could mount a plausible fight on their own against the Nexus, they will be fatally weakened by fighting among ambitious would-be American warlords vying for power within their own region, and even against warlords in other regions. The smarter ones will also learn from looking at the history of the subjugation of Scotland by the English and which the Scots (if they were united, which they were emphatically not), should have easily repelled given the rugged, mountainous topography of most of Scotland. American regional warlords will see they too, like the Scottish warlords who sold out their brother clans in clandestine (no pun intended) deals with the English for short-term economic gain, can do the same by bargaining secretly with the Nexus.
But while state secession would be the major strategic weapon the 1% is using, it not the only one. “Free trade” pacts, such as NAFTA and now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and others (see this recent development – it's still on): http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1537765/us-hopes-draft-trans-pacific-pact-free-trade-deal-november), also will play a key role in imposing economic and political world-wide corporatist-government dictatorship. The draconian rules of the TPP, ruthlessly pre-empting – even nullifying – almost all local laws and standards and undermining local traditions and customs and religious laws/ethics (another big benefit, to enhance market efficiencies and much enlarge markets, from the 1% viewpoint, “Let Muslims drink wine and see porn”) will very likely provoke a severe backlash that puts state secession at center-stage and implementation as the means to counter such pacts, which the 1% expects and for reasons given above, very much seeks. Every large region will be broken up into pieces, only the 1% at the Top will be united.