Syria: US Success Would Only Be the End of the BeginningBy Tony Cartalucci Providing testimony was former US Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, former US Marine Corps Commandant and former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General James Jones, USMC (Ret.), and Colonel Wesley Martin, US Army (Ret.). All three witnesses made passionate pleas before a room full of nodding senators for America to continue backing not only MEK terrorists currently harbored on a former US military base in Iraq, but to back groups like MEK inside of Iran itself to threaten the very survival of the government in Tehran. In the opening remarks by Lieberman, he stated: It was not only right and just that we took them off the foreign terrorist organization list, but the truth is now that we ought to be supportive of them and others in opposition to the government in Iran more than we have been. Lieberman would also state (emphasis added): Heres my point Mr. Chairman, we ought to compartmentalize that agreement also, that nuclear agreement. We ought to put it over there, and not let it stop us from confronting what theyre doing in Syria. Continuing the sanctions for human rights violations in Iran in support of terrorism. And heres the point I want to make about the National Council of Resistance of Iran and other democratic opposition groups that are Iranian we ought to be supporting them. This regime in Tehran is hopeless. Its not going to change. Theres no evidence every piece of evidence says the contrary. So I hope we can find a way, we used to do this not so long ago, supporting opposition groups in Iran. They deserve our support, and actually they would constitute a form of pressure on the government in Tehran that would unsettle them as much as anything else we could do because it would threaten the survival of the regime which from every objective indicator I can see is a very unpopular regime in Iran. The United States, unrepentant regarding the arc of chaos, mass murder, terrorism, civilizational destruction it has created stretching from Libya to Syria, now seeks openly to extend it further into Iran using precisely the same tactics the use of terrorist proxies to dismantle and destroy Iranian society. While Lieberman, General Jones, and Colonel Martin all failed categorically to accurately describe the true nature of the MEK terrorists they seek to support in a proxy war with Iran, the US policy papers these three lobbyists are reading from have done so and in great detail. MEK has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping ofUS 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. Image: MEK terrorists in Iraq, 1997. Saddam Hussein used MEK terrorists to wage proxy war on Iran. Ironically despite accusing Hussein of state-sponsored terrorism for just such a policy, the US eagerly inherited the terrorist organization and has since then aspired to use MEK in a similar fashion. Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of the lobbying firm Akin Gump in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEKs violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror a testament to the depths of depravity from which Washington and London lobbyists operate. To this day MEK terrorists have been carrying out attacks inside of Iran killing political opponents, attacking civilian targets, as well as carrying out the US-Israeli program of targeting and assassinating Iranian scientists. MEK terrorists are also suspected of handling patsies in recent false flag operations carried out in India, Georgia, and Thailand, which have been ham-handedly blamed on the Iranian government. MEK is described by Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh as a cult-like organization with totalitarian tendencies. While Takeyh fails to expand on what he meant by cult-like and totalitarian, an interview with US State Department-run Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty reported that a MEK Camp Ashraf escapee claimed the terrorist organization bans marriage, using radios, the Internet, and holds many members against their will with the threat of death if ever they are caught attempting to escape. Not once is any of this backstory mentioned in the testimony of any of the witnesses before the senate hearing, defiling the memories of those who have been murdered and otherwise victimized by this terrorist organization. The de-listing of MEK in 2012 as a foreign terrorist organization by the US State Department is another indictment of the utter lack of principles the US clearly hides behind rather than in any way upholds as a matter of executing foreign policy. MEK has already afforded the US the ability to wage a low-intensity conflict with Iran. MEKs role in doing so was eagerly discussed in 2009, several years before it was even de-listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in the Brooking Institutions policy paper Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran (PDF). The report stated (emphasis added): Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movementestablished by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American. In contrast, the groups champions contend that the movements long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the groups supporters in the United States, contendsthat the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehranand also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEKs greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium. Despite its defenders claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations.In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran.During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread. Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacksoften excused by the MEKs advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leaderships main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials.More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilianand military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, 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. Proof that Brookings policy paper was more than a mere theoretical exercise, in 2012 MEK would indeed be de-listed by the US State Department with support for the terrorist organization expanded. The fact that former senators and retired generals representing well-funded corporate think tanks even just this week are plotting to use MEK to overthrow the Iranian government should raise alarms that other criminality conspired within the pages of this policy paper may still well be in play. Lieberman himself suggests that proxy war and regime-change should proceed regardless of the so-called nuclear deal with the 2009 Brookings report itself having stated that (emphasis added): any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international contextboth to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians brought it on themselves by refusing a very good deal. Clearly, both Brookings in 2009, and Lieberman this week have conspired to use the so-called Iranian Nuclear Deal as cover for betrayal and regime change. For those wondering why Russia has intervened in Syria in the matter that it has, it should be plainly obvious. The US has no intention to stop in Syria. With Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya behind it, and Syria within its clutches, it is clear that Iran is next, and inevitably this global blitzkrieg will not stop until it reaches Moscow and Beijing. Image: Russia is not in Syria to merely prop up the Syrian government it is in Syria to stop a global blitzkrieg that has consumed several nations before Syria, and will consume all nations after Syria, including Russia itself. Even as the US adamantly denies the obvious that is has intentionally created and is currently perpetuating Al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State, and other terrorist groups in Syria, it is openly conspiring to use another army of terrorists against neighboring Iran, live before a US Senate hearing. Should the US succeed in Syria, it would not be the end of the conflict, but only the end of the beginning of a much wider world war. Tony Cartaluccis articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report, Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg. Joe LieBerman,his interest is greater Israel. Notice not once mentioned why Syria is in the USA gun cross hairs. ObviousOil/Gas pipeline to Europe and put Russia out of business and jUSA controls the world for another 100 years. Israel does not allow DUALcitizens to hold public office. Why does America? How do you inherit a terrorist organization? That makes no sense. If Saddam Hussein used them to attack Iran, and then we used them to attack Iran, it means Hussein was running them on our behalf. (He was installed by the CIA, after all.) How else would we have gotten in touch with them? Or gotten into the position to employ them? Is there anyone left in the world, (other than American Sheeple), who is not aware that the evil minions from the District of Columbia are international war criminals? 