Russia's Missile Wall in Iran

April 19, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The popular narrative surrounding the conflict between the West and Iran has always been one of a dangerous rogue state bent on obtaining nuclear weapons before triggering a nuclear-fueled Armageddon aimed at Israel. Underneath this elementary propaganda, lies a more complex truth underpinning a proxy conflict between East and West.



Just as had been the case during World War I and II, the strategic position, resources, and population of Iran constitute a necessary prerequisite to first overcome before containing and eventually overrunning the political order in Moscow. This time around, in addition to Moscow, the Western axis also seeks to eventually encircle and overrun Beijing as well.

Unlike during the World Wars, vast wars of attrition and mechanized invasions are not a possibility today. Instead, a concerted campaign of proxy wars, covert political subversion, sanctions, and other non-military instruments of power are being employed in what is for all intents and purposes a global conflict.

Increasingly defining the fronts of this conflict, in addition to political and economic alliances, is the presence of "missile walls," or national missile defense programs being erected by both East and West.

Where these missile walls end, is generally where the West's overt military aggression begins. In Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, where such missiles systems are absent, the West has or is bombing these nations with absolute impunity. The United Nations, in theory, should have prevented armed aggression against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, but has categorically failed to do so. In nations possessing formidable missile defenses, direct Western aggression has become more or less unthinkable, leaving less efficient proxy wars and political subversion to do the job.

The presence of missile defense systems capable of checking Western military aggression may be what is needed to establish both a balance of power globally, and the global stability the UN has promised but has so far failed to deliver.

Iran, the Last Watchtower 

In places like Iran where proxy wars cannot easily be waged, and foreign-backed political subversion has been checked, the West has for years planned military options to achieve regime change in Tehran. Encapsulated in the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report, these options include the use of diplomatic negotiations, particularly in regards to Iran's civil nuclear program, as a means to justify military strikes on Iran's nuclear research facilities. The strikes will surely not lead to regime change in and of themselves, but Western policymakers hope the attacks will provoke an Iranian retaliation the West could then use to expand military operations to include regime change.

Ukraine a Vector for GMO Poison's Spread Through EU

April 17, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - When the Washington Post chooses to pen an insulting, condescending editorial targeting entire nations speaking up against Western impropriety, one can just as well assume the precise opposite of whatever narrative the Post is trying to push forward is true.

Regarding American biotech companies and their attempts to infest the planet with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and in particular their attempts to corrupt the whole of Europe with their unwanted poison through a backdoor (Ukraine), has prompted Russia to speak up for their Eastern European neighbor. Up until the armed coup in 2013-2014, also known as the "Euromaidan," Ukraine had adamantly rejected GMOs.



With an obedient client regime now installed in Kiev, a series of political, economic and military decisions have been made that have more or less extinguished Ukraine as a sovereign nation state. Along with its extinguished sovereignty comes a complete lack of desire for self-preservation, and so, sowing one's fields with genetically tainted, unsafe, literal poison goes from being adamantly avoided, to being openly embraced.

This brings us back to the Washington Post and a recent editorial it has published. Titled, "Russia says Western investment in Ukraine’s farms is a plot to take over the world," it first attempts to make Russia's accusations that Monsanto is now moving in on Ukraine with plans to institute GMOs nationwide sound unfounded. That is until the Post itself admits that is precisely what Monsanto is doing. The pieces claims:
Ukraine has long tried to sell itself to Europe as the once-and-future breadbasket of the continent, promising that Western investment is the key to making its under-exploited black earth bloom. 
But official Russia would like you to know that all this agricultural development talk is really just a secret plot to help companies like Monsanto take over the world.
Then the Post openly admits:
Genetically-modified cultivation was long banned in Ukraine – as was the sale of farmland.
Then admits:
But the association agreement signed between the European Union and Ukraine last year may have created new space for the potential introduction of genetically-modified crops in Ukraine. 
Finally, the Post mentions Monsanto:
Monsanto – perhaps the most recognizable corporate name in genetically modified products – did express interest in investing in Ukraine last year. (It’s worth noting that the company operates in Russia as well, though not with GMOs, just as it has operated in Ukraine.)

Since Monsanto already operates in Ukraine, what else would it be investing in additionally that it hasn't had the opportunity to before besides GMOs? Ukraine would serve as the perfect victim to host Monsanto and other biotech corporations' GMO-infected products in the heart of Europe.

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad S-300s?

April 16, 2015 (Eric Draitser-NEO) - The executive order issued by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which lifts the ban on the export of weapons systems to Iran, has been met with sharp condemnation by Israel, and admonishment from the United States. While Moscow has yet to make a final decision on if/when it will begin supplying the S-300 air defense missiles to Iran – Tehran purchased the system under a 2007 contract left unfulfilled by Russia as a result of the UN-imposed arms embargo – it is clear that the possibility alone signals a significant shift in the geopolitics of the region.


On the one hand, Iranian air defenses would be significantly upgraded with an advanced weapons system such as S-300 which, though not exactly new, is still very much capable of defending the country’s airspace from any potential attack, be it Israeli or US. On the other hand, the possible delivery of the S-300s is a symbolic step towards integrating Iran into a broader non-NATO security architecture taking shape under the leadership of Russia and China.

While BRICS has come to be the watchword of multi-polarity, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a military-security-intelligence alliance, on top of being an economic and political forum for Sino-Russian relations. The possibility of Iran joining this alliance both through participation in SCO summits, and in practice through military and non-military contracts as well as other forms of cooperation, signals a watershed both for Iran, and the non-western world. Where, just a few years ago, the US and its allies could dictate the terms of relations between Iran and other states, today it simply cannot, nuclear deal or no nuclear deal. The S-300s are only the tip of the iceberg.

What This Means for Iran and the Region

First and foremost, Iran is going to have the opportunity to exist, at least to some extent, on an equal footing on the international stage. Though it is still unclear the specifics of the finalized agreement, including the odious sanctions regime and the extent to which it will actually be lifted, what is certain is that Iran will have much more leeway to pursue economic cooperation with potential partners internationally.


The Information War on a Whole New Level: Space

April 12, 2015 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The information war can be quickly lost if one cannot get their assets onto the "battlefield." For the US, UK or Europe, the constant din of their propaganda spread across the planet via their impressive and immense media networks has recently run into a few snags.



In nations like Russia, China or Iran, ruling governments and local industry have begun creating their own Internets, their own alternatives to US-controlled social media platforms and search engines, and in some cases, even their own hardware to run it all on. They have also taken a cue from the US and decided to put in "kill switches" and censorship measures to prevent information from abroad being piped into their nation and disseminated among their populations.

Or more accurate than saying "to prevent information from abroad," one could say, "propaganda from abroad."

For instance, the US State Department's Voice of America network openly attempts to insert narratives favorable to US interests in targeted countries. So important does the US State Department see this mission, it has even attempted to construct independent communication networks by building their own towers and relay stations.

The US State Department has also spent millions of dollars on developing an "Internet in a suitcase," or a means to create an Internet among activists even when the government of a nation targeted by the US for regime change shuts down the real Internet. Far from science fiction, the New York Times would even cover it in their article, "U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors."

But the problem the US State Department and the special interests that underwrite it, is that such solutions are easily overcome by other governments, and even non-state actors operating in the defense of their nation against US-backed sedition.

In order to crowdsource such a project, and have it spread prolifically across the planet, it must be made to appear altruistic, unattached to the political subversion it is actually created for, and put into the hands of unwitting, well-intentioned hackers for the purpose of building it, refining it and perpetually updating it to adapt and overcome whatever challenges it faces.

Enter the "Outernet" 

At first glance, the Outernet looks like an amazing social project by genuine people interested in empowering people with the vast amounts of free information available on the Internet. It is a satellite based broadcast, meaning it can reach anyone on Earth with a receiver. And while it talks about a "library in your pocket" and how having that information could change society, it also talks about the inability for sovereign governments to censor it. But who would want to censor a library?


Syria: America's Democratic Terrorists?

Al Qaeda seeks "consultations" to rule newly seized city.  

April 10, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Making headlines recently has been Al Qaeda's temporary seizure of the city of Idlib, in Idlib province, northern Syria. The embattled city lies just miles from NATO-member Turkey's borders. With the Syrian Arab Army controlling the south of Idlib, it is clear that militants based in and supplied via Turkey took part in the operation, leading the Syrian government itself to accuse the NATO member of directly supporting Al Qaeda.



Reuters in its article, "Syrian military source alleges Turkish role in Idlib offensive," noted:
A Syrian military source accused Turkey on Monday of helping Islamist rebels to stage an assault on Idlib, a provincial capital which fighters seized at the weekend. 

The source declined to comment on the situation in Idlib, citing security considerations, but a monitoring group has confirmed the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front and allies now control Idlib and said the Syrian air force bombed the city on Monday.
For years, prominent Western papers, including the New York Times in their report, "C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition," have admitted that Turkey (as well as Jordan to the south) has harbored militants throughout the duration of the conflict, and has even hosted the CIA and other foreign intelligence agencies as they armed, trained, and coordinated with militants bound for Syria. It is a coincidence, we are expected to believe, that now Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, Jabhat al Nusra just so happens to be strongest in regions bordering Turkey, and its Arab accomplice, Jordan.

Further implicating Western support behind the recent Al Qaeda offensive, comes not from the Syrian government, but from the Wall Street Journal, who has claimed, with the terrorists not even holding the city for a week, that they are already well underway to "governing" it.

The Wall Street Journal in an article titled, "Syrian Opposition Tries to Govern Newly Won Idlib City," claims:
The rebel groups that took over a provincial capital in northwest Syria over the weekend are now trying to consolidate control and establish civil governance. 

After days spent tearing down the ubiquitous images of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the coalition of Islamist groups, which includes al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, say they will help form a civilian government to run Idlib, capital of Idlib province. For now the streets are full of armed fighters with little organizational direction.

Turkey's media demanded the seized city be used as a seat to host an "interim" government, a scenario hatched by US policymakers years ago in a bid to replicate Western success in dividing, then destroying the North African nation of Libya. Originally it appeared that Aleppo would be the targeted "capital" of the West's proxy regime, but the window appears to have closed on that opportunity.

By hosting the interim government in Idlib, NATO could be "invited" to provide protection via a "no-fly-zone," effectively and permanently dividing Syria, and eventually leading to the overthrowing of the nation entirely.

The WSJ also reported that:
The opposition has a lot to prove in terms of governance as much of the territory it controls is beset by crime, corruption and a lack of services—in addition to regular attacks by the Syrian regime. The political opposition in exile, the Syrian National Coalition, has provided funding for local councils but the money has often been scarce and unreliable.
The Journal is apparently using the terms "opposition" and Al Qaeda interchangeably, while also lumping the exiled "Syrian National Coalition" in with the notorious terrorist franchise - a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization. The Journal is also admitting that the Coalition is funding Al Qaeda to run "local councils." The narrative, repeated across the Western media, is that Idlib has been irreversibly seized by the "opposition," and destined to become the capital of Syria's alleged "opposition."