America to serve as mercenary army in attack on Syria funded by Middle Eastern client states?
The two strongest voices pushing for war with Syria come from two nations that typically prefer to remain in the shadows – Saudi Arabia, who’ve recently negotiated openly with John Kerry to bankroll the proposed bombing campaign, and Israel, via AIPAC, who have launched a high-pressure lobbying campaign to gain support from Congress.
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), self-proclaimed to be one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, is descending on Capitol Hill to make a hard push to authorize strikes on Syria – with future action against Iran in view, even as Congress is poised to vote no on Obama’s authorization for Syrian strikes. According to Politico:
Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that “barbarism” by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would “send a message” to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.
The lobbying effort is so great that it led one White House official to make a comment that would later be cut from the New York Times: “One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC ‘the 800-pound gorilla in the room,’ and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, ‘If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line’ against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, ‘we’re in trouble.’
Meanwhile, over the weekend, the White House announced that it had “won the backing of Saudi Arabia for a strike while still laboring to persuade a deeply reluctant Congress.” Support from Qatar and other Arab players was also confirmed in benignly worded reports like CNN’s Kerry: Saudi Arabia OK with international military strike on Syria.
But that diplomatically toned statement underplayed reports that show the Saudis have been leading the charge. According to Secretary of State John Kerry, Saudi Arabia has outright offered to pay for the strikes, even agreeing to fund a full-scale invasion. So who who stands to benefit from that?
‘With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes,’ Kerry said. ‘They have. That offer is on the table.’
Asked what the specific figures were, Secretary of State John Kerry replied: “We don’t know what action we [will be] engaged in right now but they have been quite significant. I mean, very significant.” [emphasis added]
“In fact, some of them have said that if the U.S. is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost. That’s how dedicated they are to this,” Kerry stated.
Over the weekend, Sec. Kerry met with members of the Arab League Peace Initiative in Paris, including Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal and looked quite chummy and downright ecstatic over agreements to support the attack on Syria. Do these photos reveal genuine concern over the deaths of civilians by a chemical attack or the grin of big business churning its wheels? Again, who stands to gain from this bombing? What justice would it possibly serve?
Historian Webster Griffin Tarpley has further asserted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are attempting to bribe U.S. officials into agreeing to action against Syria.
Tarpley told Press TV that “The Saudis and the Qataris are reported to be deploying huge amounts of money for bribery, bribery to the families and political and business interests of these members of Congress.”
“Hillary Clinton has received 500,000 dollars in jewelry from the king of Saudi Arabia and Hillary Clinton just came out for war,” according to Tarpley.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have officially had a vested interest in the Syrian “civil war” since 2012 when the Arab states announced their funding for the Syrian rebel army.
More recently, Prince Bandar, head of Saudi intelligence, reportedly confronted Putin with a bare proposal to receive oil in return for dropping its support for Syria, while simultaneously making implicit threats to unleash Chechen terrorists on Russia’s 2014 Winter Olympics. Bandar further acknowledged his country’s control over the Chechen terrorists already operating to destabilize the Assad regime inside Syria.
For their part, the AIPAC lobby is in the process of persuading Congress to support Syrian military action, using their purported weight in campaigns and elections as leverage. Author M.J. Rosenberg, a former writer for AIPAC’s newsletter and later critic of the organization’s influence, outlined the modus operandi for their lobbying effort, arguing that the group’s reputation for making or breaking campaigns for election/reelection make their influence on Syria difficult for many in Washington to ignore:
AIPAC and its cutouts are the only lobbying forces supporting the administration’s plans for war and Congress will make the decision. It should be a good moment for AIPAC to make its case. Members of Congress are now in intense fund raising mode for the 2014 primaries and general election. When AIPAC visits in the next week or two, it will make the case for war with that looming overhead.
And that is why AIPAC should win. If it doesn’t and if the Members of Congress who voted “no” are re-elected anyway, then the #1 tool AIPAC has going for it will be broken. That is the belief that it is invincible because of the campaign donations its directs both to those who support it and to defeat those who don’t.
In the final analysis, it becomes alarmingly clear that U.S. leaders are NOT acting on behalf of the interests of the American people, nor are they acting out of “humanitarian” concerns for civilians killed by dictators. Instead, there is ample evidence of sworn U.S. officials partnering with foreign entities who stand to gain significant leverage in the region by taking out Syria.
President Obama has urged to Congress to vote in favor of bombing Syria (and opening the door to a larger military action) despite clearly recognizing the voice of the American people to reject this action. Melissa Melton reported for the Daily Sheeple on Obama’s startling comments:
Obama is telling our Congress — the people duly elected by the citizens of the United States to represent them in their government — to vote for bombing Syria even if the American people are overwhelmingly against any military action whatsoever in Syria.
“One of your closest allies in the House said yesterday, when you’ve got 97% of your Constituents saying no it’s kind of hard saying yes,” ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl told President Obama, asking bluntly, “Why should members of Congress go against the will of their constituents and support your decision on this?”
“Each member of Congress is going to have to decide if [they] think it’s the right thing to do for America’s national security and the world’s national security. Ultimately, you listen to your constituents, but you’ve got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America.”
With the potential to spark a wider war via Iran, Russia or other players, Americans have ever reason to reject military action in Syria. There are no good guys, and even creating a net balance for the U.S. role in world power seems nebulous at best. It appears that this once great nation has fallen under the yoke of foreign influence. It’s military might little more than a mercenary army for hire.
Our officials are telling the American public it must brace for another war, and muster support for Western-backed al Qaeda groups working as Syrian rebels, all while the economy and jobs at home continue to undermine our freedom and security. It’s not too late to call Congress and insist that the United States look after its own interests rather than submit to counterproductive entanglements with no clear objectives and little, if anything, to benefit U.S. involvement. Foreign lobbyists must not come before Constitutional limits, moral imperatives and the will of the American people, no matter how much money is dangled in front of bought off leaders.
We have created a Twitter campaign to easily retweet your opposition (or customize your message) to all 435 members of the House of Representatives, and have called numerous leaders in Washington both for and against war in Syria, as well as numerous individuals reportedly undecided or ‘on the fence.’ Please consider voicing your concerns as well!