In this issue:

Sources Confirm Saudi-Israeli Sykes-Picot Scheming Against Iran

'Surge' in Afghanistan: Another Quagmire

From Volume 8, Issue 28 of EIR Online, Published July 14, 2009
Southwest Asia News Digest

Sources Confirm Saudi-Israeli Sykes-Picot Scheming Against Iran

July 6 (EIRNS)—A senior U.S. intelligence source has confirmed news reports over the weekend of July 4-5, that Israel and Saudi Arabia are secretly negotiating over air routes for an Israeli Defense Forces attack on Iran. The source reported that Israeli officials are in talks with representatives of many of the Gulf Cooperation Council states, and that at least three possible bombing routes are being negotiated, for Israeli attacks on Iran's purported nuclear weapons program sites. Saudi-Israeli talks, crucial to any such Israeli "breakaway ally" attack, are being mediated through Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence channels, according to the source. This may also explain news reports on July 5-6 about Israeli submarines passing through the Suez Canal, which had previously been barred.

The source emphasized that Saudi Arabia and Israel, today, are the two "anchors" of the Sykes-Picot British controls over the politics of the extended Persian Gulf/Eastern Mediterranean region. Under no circumstances, the source emphasized, do the British wish to see Iran and United States enter into a diplomatic normalization—especially a process that resolves the dispute over Iran's nuclear energy program. Exploiting U.S. President Barack Obama's well-profiled Nero complex, the British have seized the initiative on the Iran crisis, and have pushed a hard line against Tehran, intended to bolster the internal position of Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad, and make U.S.-Iranian diplomatic talks far more difficult. "If the United States and Iran were to normalize diplomatic relations and solve the impasse over Iran's nuclear program," the source emphasized, "the entire British game would be up. So London is doing everything it can to heighten the tensions, weaken the Iranian opposition, and maintain their 'managed chaos' program for the region. A Saudi-Israeli agreement, based on the idea of a confrontation with Iran, is at the heart of the Sykes-Picot scheming today."

The recent statements from Sweden, on behalf of the European Union, condemning Iran for executing drug traffickers, is another aspect of the British games in the extended Southwest and South Asia region. The British are not only sabotaging any NATO cooperation with the U.S. in targeting the narco-terrorist apparatus in Afghanistan. The isolation of Iran is aimed at preventing a larger regional cooperation against the opium/heroin trade, which has destabilized the entire region, and funnels a reported $4 billion a year to Taliban and related terrorists.

The recent announcement by Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, that the United States is shifting its focus from crop eradication—which targets Afghan farmers, already being brutalized by the Taliban and other opium lords—to interdiction of traffickers, has London and other European NATO members up in arms, because it threatens the Dope, Inc. money flows into the international monetary system, through such offshore centers as Dubai.

In short, the number-one enemy of the United States in South and Southwest Asia is the British Empire. To the extent that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other regional states play into the British game, they are working against the United States and their own self-interests.

'Surge' in Afghanistan: Another Quagmire

July 11 (EIRNS)—During his Jan. 22 webcast, Lyndon LaRouche warned that there was no reason to put additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan. "There's only one issue there of strategic interest," he said, "and that is the protection of the sovereignty of a government in that country. Because the problem does not lie in the country. The problem lies in those who have a market overseas for opium and heroin. Shut down the market!"

Shortly after that, the Obama Administration announced a new strategy for Afghanistan based on the counterinsurgency doctrine developed under CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus. An additional 17,000 combat troops and 4,000 trainers were sent to join the 33,000 U.S. troops already there.

Now, it appears that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is about to announce that he has been given mission impossible. The Washington Post reported on July 11, that McChrystal is telling Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that there aren't nearly enough Afghan security forces to carry out the strategy. The 4,000 Marines that are on the offensive in Helmand province, according to the strategy, are supposed to be partnered with the same number of Afghan troops, but the Afghanis have only 650.

Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the commander of the Marine force, said earlier this week, that he needs those Afghan troops because they can see things in the local communities and culture that the Marines can't. Without enough of them, his troops are, in effect, nearly blind.

Retired Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Col. Patrick Lang suggests, on his blog July 11, that a successful counterinsurgency strategy, which is an attempt to construct a society that is more attractive and viable than what the insurgents promise, may require "the commitment of a century of effort." Lang has exposed the "massive subterranean fire, burning" in the U.S. establishment, against counterinsurgency fantasies in Afghanistan.

All rights reserved © 2009 EIRNS