In 2009, The Brookings Institution has published a paper on its – meaning America´s – plan for Iran: “Which Path to Persia?” Acc. to the document this path goes through Syria.
Along with the Council on Foreign Relations and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Brookings is generally considered one of the most influential policy institutes in the U.S.
Educate Yourself: Brookings Institution dedicates its work to what it calls a “national agenda.” Wrote President Hoover’s program, President Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the Kennedy Administration’s “New Frontiers” program (deviation from it may have cost John F. Kennedy his life), and President Johnson’s “Great Society.” Brookings has been telling the United States Government how to conduct its affairs for the past 70 years and is still doing so.
And just look who commands them to write such tings
Left: Land Destroyer shows some funders of the Brookings Institution. The Rockefellers are also among them (e.g. Chevron and Exxon) – like Rothschild´s VISA and Rothschild´s Royal Dutch Shell and Goldman Sachs
Wikipedia: But Its largest contributors/funders include the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum, Bank of America, Exxon, Mobil, Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the governments of the United States, Japan, Qatar, the Republic of China, the District of Columbia, and the United Kingdom
Wikipedia Brookings traces its history back to 1916 and has contributed to the creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, and the Congressional Budget Office, as well as influenced policies of deregulation, broad-based tax reform, welfare reform, and foreign aid. It is ranked the number one think tank in the U.S. in the annual think tank index published by Foreign Policy, and number one in the world in the Global Go To Think Tank Index.
So it´s well worth listening when Brookings´vicepresident speaks about the most burning themes today:
HOW TO SUBDUE IRAN UNDER THE NWO ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT OF THE LONDON CITY USING THE US AS ITS MILITARY WING – LIKE AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, LIBYA – AND BY AND BY PERHAPS SYRIA.
NATO-general Wesley Clark in 2001 based on Pentagon insider information foretold that Iran would be the last out of 7 government planned by the USA to be ousted
How that is to be done is described by Martin Indyk, vicepresident of the Brookings Institution – and – of course – a member of Rothschild´s Council on Foreign Relations and a member of Bill Clinton´s government at a hearing in the US Congress.
In fact, Nathaniel Rothschild is a member of Brookings´International Advisory Council.
In the following Brooking´s speech on 28 March 2017, Indyk sayshttp://euro-med.dk/?p=29164: Iran It has established an “arc of influence” that stretches from Lebanon on the Mediterranean Sea, across Syria in the Middle East heartland, to Iraq and Bahrain on the Gulf, and to Yemen on the Red Sea.
In the 1990s, for example, when I had responsibility for Iran policy in the Clinton Administration, we pursued a strategy of containment to deal with the threat that was already manifest.
Syria remains the lynchpin of Iran’s strategy for dominating the Middle East heartland. Therefore, any new American strategy to counter Iran’s threats needs to take account of the way that, in the Middle East, everything is connected.
Push back on Iran in Syria, and they might well use the Shia militias in Iraq to undermine our effort to eliminate ISIS there, or encourage Hamas to launch rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza.
The Iranians may have been responsible for the deaths of as many as 500 American soldiers in Iraq during the Surge, by supplying explosively formed penetrators (EFPs)to Shia militias.
Countering Iran’s regional ambitions is deadly business. We should push back:
First Element: The rigorous enforcement of the Iran nuclear deal is the first element in a push-back strategy
The second element in the push-back strategy is support for the Iraqi government.
The third element in the push-back strategy is effective promotion of a political resolution of the civil war in Yemen.
The fourth element in the push-back strategy is to reduce Iran’s influence in Syria.
Developing and implementing it is not helped by loose talk about the unrealistic objective of “pushing Iran out of Syria. Neither we, nor the Russians, have the will or capacity to achieve it.
Iran’s “core interest” in retaining a foothold in Syria is because it is the lynchpin of its wider hegemonic strategy.
The United States has never viewed Syria as a core or vital interest and we therefore do not have the will or interest in deploying the forces necessary to achieve that objective.
Russia does have a long-standing strategic interest in Syria because of its port facilities for the Russian navy and its role as a platform for the projection of Russian influence across the region.
Russian and Iranian interests overlap in Syria in their common objective of maintaining the Assad regime in power. But they are also rivals for influence in -Damascus, and Assad relishes the opportunity to play them off against each other.
Exploiting that rivalry has advantages for an American strategy of reducing Iranian influence in Syria. However, that game has strict upper limits. Russia will not cooperate in the undermining of its own influence in Syria for the sake of a partnership with the United States.
We should therefore set more modest objectives. We can, for example, press Russia to deny Iran port facilities in Syria. An Iranian-controlled port would enable Iran more easily to ship weapons to Hezbollah. That would severely exacerbate the conflict between Iran and Israel, something Russia has an interest in avoiding.
The fifth element in the push-back strategy is to concert the capabilities of our regional allies in a regional security framework that can sustain a long-term, burden-sharing effort. The United States is fortunate to have capable regional strategic partners in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab states.
The sixth element of the push-back strategy is to lay the foundations for negotiations with Iran about its ambitions and behavior in the region.
The Iran nuclear deal, notwithstanding its shortcomings, demonstrates that it is possible to reach enforceable agreements with Iran, using sanctions and concerted diplomacy as leverage to achieve our objectives, i.e. putting a carrot as well as a stick on the table.
We should be careful about making threats unless we are prepared to back them up, and we should be wary of declaring objectives that we have neither the will nor capacity to achieve. Above all, we should be mindful of the logical consequences of our strategy and think those through before launching on a course that could well have the opposite effect of what we intended.
But this is not the policy at the heart of Brookings: Brookings Institution 23 June 2015 has launched an article under the sobering title“Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country”. This could very well be the model for Iran, too, since diplomatic access has been and will remain futile – apart from the nuclear agreement which both Trump and Israel´s Netanyahu want to cancel. And ISIS was just created for the purpose of proxy guerilla warfare in the Middle East by Israel and the US.
Brookings: “This paper makes a case for a new approach to Syria that attempts to bring ends and means more realistically into balance. It also seeks to end the Hobson’s choice currently confronting American policymakers, whereby they can neither attempt to unseat President Assad in any concerted way (because doing so would clear the path for ISIL), nor tolerate him as a future leader of the country (because of the abominations he has committed, and because any such policy would bring the United States into direct disagreement with almost all of its regional allies).
The new approach would seek to break the problem down in a number of localized components of the country, pursuing regional stopgap solutions while envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government.
It also proposes a path to an intensified train and equip program. Once that program had generated a critical mass of fighters in training locations abroad, it would move to a next stage. Coupled with a U.S. willingness, in collaboration with regional partners, to help defend local safe areas using American airpower as well as special forces support once circumstances are conducive, the Syrian opposition fighters would then establish safe zones in Syria that they would seek to expand and solidify. The safe zones would also be used to accelerate recruiting and training of additional opposition fighters who could live in, and help protect, their communities while going through basic training. They would, in addition, be locations where humanitarian relief could be provided to needy populations, and local governance structures developed.
The strategy would begin by establishing one or two zones in relatively promising locations, such as the Kurdish northeast and perhaps in the country’s south near Jordan, to see how well the concept could work and how fast momentum could be built up. Over time, more might be created, if possible. Ultimately, and ideally, some of the safe zones might merge together as key elements in a future confederal arrangement for the Syrian state.
Assad, ISIL, and al-Nusra could have no role in such a future state, but for now,American policymakers could otherwise remain agnostic about the future character and governing structures of such an entity.”
More about in my upcoming post on Brookings´ plan for the conquest of Iran by US supported proxies – modelled on the “success” of creating chaos in Syria , Iraq, Libya