by Alastair Crooke, Strategic Culture:
Plan ‘A’ was to topple the Islamic Republic which was seen as nothing more than a fragile house of cards. That collapse – it was expected – would ripple through, and take down several connected Axis of Resistance fronts, according to the analysis of Mossad and interlinked Israeli power centres in the U.S. (Certain U.S. officials did, however, entertain doubts).
The prediction of a popular uprising in Iran has proved to have been a strategic mistake of such bearing that per contra, it catalysed a stronger, more defiant and assertive Republic. Even Israeli experts admit that the false premise underlying the war has generated a new balance of power in the Middle East. Until then, a top Israeli military commentator (Alon Ben David) could say, Israel was the ‘go-to’ address in the Middle East for the world’s interests; but that from now on, the ‘go-to’ state is, and will be, Iran. That comment exemplified the extent to which a Rubicon had been crossed.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
So the collective pro-Zionist bloc has shifted to plan ‘B’ – a ‘deceit’ based on the MoU, which were Trump’s interpretations to be accepted by Iran (unlikely), would effectively lead to the disarming of Iran through a nuclear agreement that would strip the state naked by virtue of its ‘verification’ requirements: Intrusive, ‘go-anywhere’ surprise IAEA inspections of ‘secret underground sites’ and interrogations of scientists and research academies. All would (again) be exposed.
Taken in tandem with Plan ‘B’s wider Israeli hegemonic aspiration, the aim would be to concurrently lobotomise Hizbullah through a separate disarmament agreement effected through compliant Lebanese government factions pressing down on the movement from the north, whilst Israel pursued ‘desertification’ in the south.
In parallel, the plan envisages the sterilisation of Palestinian resistance by drawing from the Vietnam ‘Strategic Hamlet Programme’ forerunner of forced relocation into sterilised, fenced ‘concentration camps‘.
The third component comprises the cauterisation of the Iraqi Resistance via a compliant new American installed Prime Minister, Ali al-Zaidi, who under the cover of anti-corruption campaign, with U.S. support, is demanding the disarmament of the Iraqi resistance by 30 September. The neutralisation of the Iraqi resistance is seen as key to facilitating a Syrian incursion by President Jolani’s jihadist militia into northern Lebanon to complete the vice closing in on Hizbullah.
All in all, Plan ‘B’ seemingly suggests a very comprehensive regional pacification project, especially when taken in conjunction with U.S. efforts to try to force open an ‘American Corridor’ on the Omani side of the Hormuz Strait.
Likely, the regional pacification scheme will be viewed as a clever move by Trump to mitigate the pressure exerted on him by the neo-con’s anger at his MoU ‘concessions’ to Iran.
But is it so clever? Marco Rubio was instructed to oversee the Beirut establishment making pretty with Israel in their shared antagonism towards Hizbullah. But the resulting ‘bout de papier’ for the disarming of Hizbullah enjoys no legitimacy; it contradicts the Lebanese Constitution and would require cabinet endorsement and parliamentary approval to have any validity or meaning.
What the Israel-Lebanon agreement does do, however, is to stick a dagger in Vance’s separately agreed Qatari-chaired U.S. and Iran co-ordination structure for overseeing MoU compliance in Lebanon. Rubio’s initiative to cut Iran out from the Lebanese co-ordination framework cuts across the MoU and Vance’s mediation efforts. Rubio’s tripartite ‘paper’ will solve nothing, but will leave the ‘Lebanon issue’ to continue as an open sore.
Yet a “ceasefire in Lebanon and Israeli withdrawal” is pivotal to the functioning of the MoU. It appears that Netanyahu tee’d up Ron Dermer to get Rubio to sabotage the MoU.
So, now we have civil war inside the White House over Iran – Vance vs Rubio – whilst the MoU slides into abeyance, likely remaining in situ, albeit in comatose state.
In parallel, things are falling apart: leading challenger to Netanyahu in the upcoming elections and former IDF chief and former war cabinet member, Gadi Eisenkot, confirmed this week that “Iran never obtained nuclear weapons. I’m well aware of all the intelligence . . . Netanyahu is inventing a reality, manufacturing threats, and that’s how he frightens the Israeli public”. Former PM Bennett agreed, saying that Netanyahu’s claims are ‘lies’, accusing him of “reverse-engineering history”.
Read More @ Strategic-Culture.org
