Movies made with Pentagon influence and supervision

https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/08/here-are-410-movies-made-under-the-direct-influence-and-supervision-of-the-pentagon/

Movies made with Pentagon influence and supervision

https://thedailycoin.org/2018/08/08/here-are-410-movies-made-under-the-direct-influence-and-supervision-of-the-pentagon/

Obama Ordered To Denver Bunker By US Military

hmmm. Does this coincide with Elenin coming close on 25 & 26 September? If preparations are being made, and Obama is in his bunker for 27th, it looks suspicious. I really don't know how the Sol / Elenin / Earth alignment will turn out. I hope very little happens, but it will be coming close, and it is big, and reportedly has a tail 200,000 km long (please correct me if wrong on that).
I'd rather take some minor precautions than be a total ostrich with my head in the sand.
What do you think?
Steve B
=====
Posted by EU Times on Sep 14th, 2011

A disturbing report prepared by General Alexey Maslov, the Senior Military Representative of the Permanent Mission of Russia to NATO, states that he has been notified by the Americans of their plan to hold a DEFCON 1 “Cocked Pistol” maximum readiness alert drill on 27 September which will be overseen by President Obama at one the United States most secure bunkers located beneath the Denver International Airport.
Under the SALT I Strategic Nuclear Arms Control Agreement signed between Russia and the US, both parties are required to notify the other in all cases of such maximum readiness drills occurring, but are not required to state their reasons for doing so.
General Maslov states in his report, though, his concern over this drill is “heightened” due to last months nuclear attack on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) branch of the intercontinental military tunnel complex between Washington D.C. and Denver, and which we reported on in our 24 August report Russia Reports Nuclear Explosions Hit Vast US Military Tunnel Network.
Important to note is that shortly after the devastating attacks on American on 11 September 2001, the Bush regime moved to completely militarize the CIA by placing as its Director former US Air Force General Michael Hayden who served in that capacity until February, 2009 when Obama then put in place the former US Army intelligence officer Leon Panetta to run this most powerful of spy agencies. After Panetta, Obama put Americas top general David Petraeus in charge of the CIA barely a week after the aforementioned nuclear attack upon it.
The fears of both the Bush and Obama regimes regarding the CIA were due to their complicity in the 11 September 2001 attacks upon America utilizing their al Qaeda terror network headed by their main asset Osama bin Laden, otherwise known by his code name of “Tim Osman,” that was run jointly with Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and funded by the Saudi royal family.
Important to note is that Russian intelligence services were long aware of the CIA-ISI “Tim Osman” operation after it had been infiltrated by top FSB agent Viktor Bout who delivered to Marvin Bush, President George Bush’s younger brother, and Wirt Walker III, George Bush’s cousin the approximately 15 tonnes of Russian military PVV-5A Plastic Explosive plastic explosives used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings.
In our 1 September 2010 report US-Russia Bidding War For 9/11 “Merchant Of Death” Reaches $20 Billion we detailed this sordid plot and, in part, stated:
“Important to note about Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker III is that at the time of the 9/11 attacks they were both directors of the American security company named Stratesec (formally known as Securacom) which was given a $8.3 million contract to help provide security at the World Trade Center and which the weekend prior to the attacks completely closed this massive skyscraper complex for 36 hours to “upgrade” its security system.
Now Bout in being curious, to say the least, as to why the Bush Family needed so much Russian explosives for their “upgrade” of the World Trade Center complex was “invited” by Marvin Bush to come to New York City to watch “the big show”, an offer Bout did not refuse. And so the night prior to 9/11 Bout traveled to New York City where he was met by Bush “operatives” working for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who “coincidentally” had scheduled an emergency exercise for the morning of September 11, 2001 that all too soon became real.
Bout was given a FEMA security pass that gave him unhindered access to the aftermath of the catastrophic attacks upon the World Trade Center complex which these reports document he took full advantage of. Unfortunately for the Americans though was that Bout’s “visit” wearing his FEMA “credentials” was filmed by FEMA’s official videographer Kurt Sonnenfeld, who was the only film maker given unrestricted access to the 9/11 site.”
The “main conduit” for Saudi Arabian cash used to finance the “Tim Osman” operation was identified by Bout in his FSB reports as being Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife Anoud (a grand niece of Saudi King Abdullah ) who lived in Sarasota, Florida, and who just days prior to the 11 September 2011 attacks suddenly left all of their possessions and returned home. Though the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was quick to state that the Hijji’s had no connection with the Saudi hijackers it is more than curious to note that nearly all of them were recorded visiting them in the days prior to the attacks.
The importance of noting the CIA-ISI-Saudi connection to the attacks upon America on 11 September 2001 with the Obama’s planned 27 September “Cocked Pistol” alert is due to General Maslov warning in his report that this unprecedented drill occurring in Denver on that date could very well likely be related to threats made against the United States by both Saudi Arabia and Israel over the upcoming UN General Assembly vote to declare Palestinian statehood.
Where Israel commands vast resources within the United States to elect government officials, including Presidents, and who have fallen out of favor with Obama over his polices towards Israel, former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal warned yesterday that unless the Obama regime voted for Palestinian statehood, “Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has” and the “chances of another war in the region” would be assured.
As we had warned about in our 28 May report Obama Vows War On Saudi Arabia, Orders Thousands Of US Troops To Region, and our 23 June report Nuclear Attack On US Warned Imminent As Saudi War Nears, the United States plans for all-out global war are well in place and are now awaiting the “spark” that will set it off.
To if the date of 27 September when Obama will be in Denver will be the date this “spark” is set off it is not in our knowing. What is in our knowing, though, is that since the CIA transferred their headquarters to Denver in 2005 under the mysterious airport [second photo right] with bizarre murals depicting [3rd and 4th photos right] picturing mass global death, particularly between Israelis and Palestinians, the questions as to who, or what, actually controls the United States today remains in question.
And when this information is coupled with the fact that 27 September is one of the most significant dates in American history because on that date, in 1777, after British troops captured Philadelphia, Lancaster, Pennsylvania became the United States capitol for that single day, the first time such a thing occurred in all of that nations history, and it is, also, the date that Comet Elenin enters into its feared alignment with the Earth, Sun and Moon with many believing these conjunctions are responsible for catastrophic earthquakes and tsunamis, and nearly all of NASA’s top officials and scientists will be in Denver on that date too, one can be justifiably perplexed as to the many meanings these events have.
But, to the greater meaning of all of these things it has been best stated by Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, who warned the American people about the future to come:
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
And to understand these words are to understand everything, especially what is to come. No one, therefore, can say that they were never warned, only that they didn’t listen.

source: http://www.eutimes.net/2011/09/obama-ordered-to-denver-bunker-by-us-military/

NWO to hit seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia & Sudan

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."  General Wesley Clark

PART I I 

The Pentagon's "Salvador Option": The Deployment of Death Squads in Iraq and Syria - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2011-08-16

An extended Middle East Central Asian war has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s.

As part of this extended war scenario, the US-NATO alliance plans to wage a military campaign against Syria under a UN sponsored "humanitarian mandate".

Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. Destabilization of sovereign states through "regime change" is closely coordinated with military planning.

There is a military roadmap characterised by a sequence of US-NATO war theaters.

War preparations to attack Syria and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years. The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003  categorizes Syria as a "rogue state", as a country which supports terrorism. 

A war on Syria is viewed by the Pentagon as part of the broader war directed against Iran. President George W. Bush confirmed in his Memoirs that he had "ordered the Pentagon to plan an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and [had] considered a covert attack on Syria" (George Bush's memoirs reveal how he considered attacks on Iran and Syria, The Guardian, November 8, 2010)

This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil reserves and pipeline routes. It is supported by the Anglo-American oil giants.
The July 2006 bombing of Lebanon was part of a carefully planned "military road map". The extension of "The July War" on Lebanon into Syria had been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. It was abandoned upon the defeat of Israeli ground forces by Hizbollah.

Israel's July 2006 war on Lebanon also sought to establish Israeli control over the North Eastern Mediterranean coastline including offshore oil and gas reserves in Lebanese and Palestinian territorial waters.

The plans to invade both Lebanon and Syria have remained on the Pentagon's  drawing board despite Israel's setback in the 2006 July War: "In November 2008, barely a month before Tel Aviv started its massacre in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military held drills for a two-front war against Lebanon and Syria called Shiluv Zro’ot III (Crossing Arms III).  The military exercise included a massive simulated invasion of both Syria and Lebanon" (See Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya, Israel's Next War: Today the Gaza Strip, Tomorrow Lebanon?, Global Research, January 17, 2009)

The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would involve, as a first step, a destabilization campaign ("regime change") including covert intelligence operations in support of rebel forces directed against the Syrian government.  

A "humanitarian war" under the logo of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) directed against Syria would also contribute to the ongoing destabilization of Lebanon. 

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and intelligence operations.

A war on Syria would lead to military escalation.

There are at present four distinct war theaters: Afghanistan-Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine and Libya.

An attack on Syria would lead to the integration of these separate war theaters, eventually leading towards a broader Middle East-Central Asian war, engulfing an entire region from North Africa and the Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The ongoing protest movement is intended to serve as a pretext and a justification to intervene militarily against Syria. The existence of an armed insurrection is denied. The Western media in chorus have described recent events in Syria as a "peaceful protest movement" directed against the government of Bashar Al Assad, when the evidence confirms the existence of an armed insurgency integrated by Islamic paramilitary groups.  

From the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March, there has been an exchange of fire between the police and armed forces on the one hand and armed gunmen on the other. Acts of arson directed against government buildings have also been committed. In late July in Hama, public buildings including the Court House and the Agricultural Bank were set on fire. Israeli news sources, while dismissing the existence of an armed conflict, nonetheless, acknowledge that "protesters [were] armed with heavy machine guns." (DEBKAfile August 1, 2001. Report on Hama, emphasis added)

"All Options on the Table"

In June, US Senator Lindsey Graham (who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee) hinted to the possibility of a "humanitarian" military intervention directed against Syria with a view to "saving the lives of civilians". Graham suggested that the "option" applied to Libya under UN Secuirty Council resolution 1973 should be envisaged in the case of Syria:

“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria, ...

We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” (CBS "Face The Nation", June 12, 2011)

Following the adoption of the UN Security Council Statement pertaining to Syria (August 3, 2011), the White House called, in no uncertain terms, for "regime change" in Syria and the ouster of President Bashar Al Assad:

"We do not want to see him remain in Syria for stability's sake, and rather, we view him as the cause of instability in Syria," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday.

"And we think, frankly, that it's safe to say that Syria would be a better place without President Assad," (quoted in Syria: US Call Closer to Calling for Regime Change, IPS, August 4, 2011)

Extended economic sanctions often constitute a leadup towards outright military intervention.

A bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman was introduced in the US Senate with a view to authorizing sweeping economic sanctions against Syria. Moreover, in a letter to President Obama in early August, a group of more than sixty U.S. senators called for "implementing additional sanctions... while also making it clear to the Syrian regime that it will pay an increasing cost for its outrageous repression." 

These sanctions would require blocking bank and financial transactions as well as "ending purchases of Syrian oil, and cutting off investments in Syria's oil and gas sectors." (See  Pressure on Obama to get tougher on Syria coming from all sides - Foreign Policy,  August 3, 2011).

Meanwhile, the US State Department has also met with members of the Syrian opposition in exile. Covert support has also been channelled to the armed rebel groups.

Dangerous Crossroads: War on Syria. Beachhead for an Attack on Iran

Following the August 3 Statement by the Chairman of the UN Security Council directed against Syria, Moscow's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin warned of the dangers of military escalation:

"NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran,...

"[This statement] means that the planning [of the military campaign] is well underway. It could be a logical conclusion of those military and propaganda operations, which have been carried out by certain Western countries against North Africa," Rogozin said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper... The Russian diplomat pointed out at the fact that the alliance is aiming to interfere only with the regimes "whose views do not coincide with those of the West."

Rogozin agreed with the opinion expressed by some experts that Syria and later Yemen could be NATO's last steps on the way to launch an attack on Iran.

"The noose around Iran is tightening. Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region," Rogozin said.

Having learned the Libyan lesson, Russia "will continue to oppose a forcible resolution of the situation in Syria," he said, adding that the consequences of a large-scale conflict in North Africa would be devastating for the whole world. "Beachhead for an Attack on Iran": NATO is planning a Military Campaign against Syria, Novosti, August 5, 2011)

Dmitry Rogozin, August 2011

Military Blueprint for an Attack on Syria
Dimitry Rogozin's warning was based on concrete information known and documented in military circles, that NATO is currently planning a military campaign against Syria. In this regard, a scenario of an attack on Syria is currently on the drawing board, involving French, British and Israeli military experts. According to former Commander of the French Air Force (chef d'Etat-Major de l'Armée de l'air) General Jean Rannou, "a  NATO strike to disable the Syrian army is technically feasible": 

"Nato member countries would begin by using satellite technology to spot Syrian air defences. A few days later, warplanes, in larger numbers than Libya, would take off from the UK base in Cyprus and spend some 48 hours destroying Syrian surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and jets. Alliance aircraft would then start an open-ended bombardment of Syrian tanks and ground troops.
The scenario is based on analysts in the French military, from the specialist British publication Jane's Defence Weekly and from Israel's Channel 10 TV station.
The Syrian air force is said to pose little threat. It has around 60 Russian-made MiG-29s. But the rest - some 160 MiG-21s, 80 MiG-23s, 60 MiG-23BNs, 50 Su-22s and 20 Su-24MKs - is out of date.
...."I don't see any purely military problems. Syria has no defence against Western systems ... [But] it would be more risky than Libya. It would be a heavy military operation," Jean Rannou, the former chief of the French air force, told EUobserver. He added that action is highly unlikely because Russia would veto a UN mandate, Nato assets are stretched in Afghanistan and Libya and Nato countries are in financial crisis. (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011)  

The Broader Military Roadmap 
While Libya, Syria and Iran are part of the military roadmap, this strategic deployment if it were to be carried out would also threaten  China and Russia. Both countries have investment, trade as well as military cooperation agreements with Syria and Iran. Iran has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Escalation is part of the military agenda. Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America's NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.

The Role of Israel and Turkey

Both Ankara and Tel Aviv are involved in supporting an armed insurgency. These endeavors are coordinated between the two governments and their intelligence agencies.

Israel's Mossad, according to reports, has provided covert support to radical Salafi terrorist groups, which became active in Southern Syria at the outset of the protest movement in Daraa in mid-March. Reports suggest that financing for the Salafi insurgency is coming from Saudi Arabia. (See Syrian army closes in on Damascus suburbs, The Irish Times, May 10, 2011).

The Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan is supporting Syrian opposition groups in exile while also backing the armed rebels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Northern Syria.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) are behind the insurrection. Both organizations are supported by Britain's MI6. The avowed objective of both MB and Hizb-ut Tahir is ultimately to destabilize Syria's secular State. (See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO "Humanitarian Intervention", Global Research, May 3, 2011).

In June, Turkish troops crossed the border into northern Syria, officially to come to the rescue of Syrian refugees. The government of Bashar Al Assad accused Turkey of directly supporting the incursion of rebel forces into northern Syria:

"A rebel force of up to 500 fighters attacked a Syrian Army position on June 4 in northern Syria. They said the target, a garrison of Military Intelligence, was captured in a 36-hour assault in which 72 soldiers were killed in Jisr Al Shoughour, near the border with Turkey.
“We found that the criminals [rebel fighters] were using weapons from Turkey, and this is very worrisome,” an official said.
This marked the first time that the Assad regime has accused Turkey of helping the revolt. ... Officials said the rebels drove the Syrian Army from Jisr Al Shoughour and then took over the town. They said government buildings were looted and torched before another Assad force arrived. ...
A Syrian officer who conducted the tour said the rebels in Jisr Al Shoughour consisted of Al Qaida-aligned fighters. He said the rebels employed a range of Turkish weapons and ammunition but did not accuse the Ankara government of supplying the equipment." (Syria’s Assad accuses Turkey of arming rebels, TR Defence, Jun 25 2011)

Denied by the Western media, foreign support to Islamist insurgents, which have "infiltrated the protest movement", is, nonetheless, confirmed by Western intelligence sources. According to former MI6 officer Alistair Crooke (and high level EU adviser): "two important forces behind events [in Syria] are Sunni radicals and Syrian exile groups in France and the US. He said the radicals follow the teaching of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a late Jordanian Islamist, who aimed to create a Sunni emirate in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria called Bilad a-Sham. They are experienced urban guerillas who fought in Iraq and have outside finance. They infilitrate protests to attack Assad forces, as in Jisr al-Shagour in June, where they inflicted heavy casualties." (Andrew Rettman, Blueprint For NATO Attack On Syria Revealed, Global Research, August 11, 2011, emphasis added).

The former MI6 official also confirms that Israel and the US are supporting and financing the terrorists: "Crooke said the exile groups aim to topple the anti-Israeli [Syrian] regime. They are funded and trained by the US and have links to Israel. They pay Sunni tribal chiefs to put people on the streets, work with NGOs to feed uncorroborated stories of atrocities to Western media and co-operate with radicals in the hope that escalating violence will justify Nato intervention." (Ibid, emphasis added).

Political factions within Lebanon are also involved. Lebanese intelligence has confirmed the covert shipment of assault rifles and automatic weapons to Salafi fighters. The shipment was carried out by Saudi-backed Lebanese politicians. 

The Israel-Turkey Military Cooperation Agreement
Israel and Turkey have a military cooperation agreement which pertains in a very direct way to Syria as well to the strategic Lebanese-Syrian Eastern Mediterranean coastline (including the gas reserves off the coast of Lebanon and pipeline routes). 

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This "triple alliance", which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ....

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes "many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." (See Michel Chossudovsky,"Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

Meanwhile, the recent reshuffle within Turkey's top brass has reinforced the pro-Islamist faction within the armed forces. In late July, The Commander in Chief of the Army and head of Turkey's Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Isik Kosaner, resigned together with the commanders of the Navy and Air Force.

General Kosaner represented a broadly secular stance within the Armed Forces. General Necdet Ozel has been appointed as his replacement as commander of the Army the new army chief.

These developments are of crucial importance. They tend to support US interests. They also point to a potential shift within the military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood including the armed insurrection in Northern Syria.

"New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey... [T]he military power is able to carry out more ambitious projects in the region. It is predicted that in case of using the Libyan scenario in Syria it is possible that Turkey will apply for military intervention." ( New appointments have strengthened Erdogan and the ruling party in Turkey : Public Radio of Armenia, August 06, 2011, emphasis added)

Muslim Brotherhood Rebels at Jisr al Shughour Photos AFP June 16, 2011

[Note: this photo is in many regards misleading. Most of the rebel gunmen are highly trained with modern weapons.]

The Extended NATO Military Alliance
Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) are partners of NATO, whose forces could be deployed in a campaign directed against Syria.

Israel is a de facto member of NATO following an agreement signed in 2005.

The process of military planning within NATO's extended alliance involves coordination between the Pentagon, NATO, Israel's Defense Force (IDF), as well as the active military involvement of the frontline Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt: all in all ten Arab countries plus Israel are members of The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. 

We are at a dangerous crossroads. The geopolitical implications are far-reaching.

Syria has borders with Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. It spreads across the valley of the Euphrates, it is at the crossroads of major waterways and pipeline routes.

Syria is an ally of Iran. Russia has a naval base in North Western Syria (see map).

Establishment of a base in Tartus and rapid advancement of military technology cooperation with Damascus makes Syria Russia's instrumental bridgehead and bulwark in the Middle East.

Damascus is an important ally of Iran and irreconcilable enemy of Israel. It goes without saying that appearance of the Russian military base in the region will certainly introduce corrections into the existing correlation of forces.

Russia is taking the Syrian regime under its protection. It will almost certainly sour Moscow's relations with Israel. It may even encourage the Iranian regime nearby and make it even less tractable in the nuclear program talks.( Ivan Safronov, Russia to defend its principal Middle East ally: Moscow takes Syria under its protection, Global Research July 28, 2006)

World War III Scenario

For the last five years, the Middle East-Central Asian region has been on an active war footing.

Syria has significant air defense capabilities as well as ground forces.

Syria has been building up its air defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles. In 2010, Russia delivered a Yakhont missile system to Syria. The Yakhont operating out of Russia's Tartus naval base "are designed for engagement of enemy's ships at the range of up to 300 km". (Bastion missile systems to protect Russian naval base in Syria, Ria Novosti,  September 21, 2010). 

The structure of military alliances respectively on the US-NATO and Syria-Iran-SCO sides, not to mention the military involvement of Israel, the complex relationship between Syria and Lebanon, the pressures exerted by Turkey on Syria's northern border, point indelibly to a dangerous process of escalation.

Any form of US-NATO sponsored military intervention directed against Syria would destabilize the entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan and China. 

In the short run, with the war in Libya, the US-NATO military alliance is overextended in terms of its capabilities. While we do not forsee the implementation of a US-NATO military operation in the short-term, the process of political destabilization through the covert support of a rebel insurgency will in all likelihood continue. 

source article updated on August 11, 2011.