“Two years into a war that’s reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what’s happening in this region. But they should know they are paying for most of it in a way they might not fully yet perceive.” -Tucker Carlson
Here is the link to watch the video:: https://tuckercarlson.com – please watch and share.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
It’s easy to downplay or even dismiss the threat by Iranian warships said to be on their way to sail close to U.S. maritime borders if one merely looks at this move as taking place in a geopolitical vacuum.
The problem is that we are not residing in such a vacuum, and the majority of Americans do not understand the significance of events that have been taking place since the planning phases of the “Arab Spring.” The American public is not getting the truth from the White House or the Western media that appears to be covering for, if not facilitating the Obama agenda.
How is this relevant to Iranian warships reportedly planning to prod the U.S. maritime borders? To understand why this is happening, we’ve got to understand the bigger picture.
The Obama agenda, as it is for now and as it has been since day one, is the Saudi agenda. That agenda calls for the toppling of various governments and the installation of an Islamic Caliphate under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.
As an aside, I might ask whether the selection of Barack Hussein Obama is starting to make more sense now, and whether the mystery funding by foreign (Saudi) interests to his campaign also is beginning to make sense. Might this not place the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government into an appropriate context as well? But I digress.
To understand why Iran seems to be suddenly stirring things up, you’ve got to understand the “back story,” not the fairy tales manufactured by the Obama regime or its media sycophants, but the real, difficult-to-accept accounting of our involvement in the Middle East. If you’ve read my numerous reports about Benghazi, you’ll already understand that our continued push to rid Syria of Assad would be answered through asymmetrical means.
Through this movement of Iranian warships, we are witnessing the movement of chess pieces in this game of global, 3-D chess. We must remember that this game has different boards, layers, and pieces. The Iranian ships are but one piece on one board. There are many others, each interrelated.
Simply put, Iran is a proxy nation of Russia, much like North Korea is a proxy nation of China. Both Russia and China have military and economic interests in Syria, which is the back door to Iran. Under Obama, the puppet attached to Saudi strings, played a central role in unceremoniously dispatching Gaddafi to his final reward under the pretext of freeing an oppressed Libyan people. You might recall the glee expressed by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton when given the news that Gaddafi was finally out of the way.
At the same time, the U.S. NATO, the U.S., and several other allies, including Saudi Arabia, were already engaged in a proxy war with Russia and Iran in Syria. Key to toppling Assad was, and still is, supplying arms and trained fighters to assist the “anti-Assad rebels.” This was the purpose of the CIA compound in Benghazi. As I pointed out along with Michael Reagan in his article Building on a kernel of truth, northern Africa, and specifically Libya served as a virtual Ho Chi Minh trail of Muslim Brotherhood supply lines arming the rebels.
Before the operation could wind down in Benghazi, the logistics hub for the planning and staging these arming operations, the CIA compound was the site of a coordinated, pre-planned attack by groups affiliated with Iran and by proxy, Russia. Syria held and continues to hold military and economic importance to Russia, and Putin made it clear that meddling in Syria could start World War III. That’s what we were doing then, and that’s what we are still doing now.
After exposing to the world (except for the media lapdogs who continued to provide cover for Obama and his handlers) what the U.S., the British, French, the Saudis and others were up to in Libya, plans had to be altered. The Kerry State Department, under orders from Obama, gave the green light to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to open a new front to arm the anti-Assad rebels in Syria through the western portion of Iraq—the al Anbar Province. You might recall that Kerry announced that the U.S. would not provide any military assistance in Iraq to stop ISIS and their affiliates. As such, the objective to topple Assad continues, just not in the manner initially desired.
As I reported in my previous columns and on my radio show, Putin is not about to allow our covert assistance to oust Assad and destabilize Syria to go unanswered. While he might feel temporarily restrained by the potential influence of Saudi controlled terrorism at games at Sochi, we can expect him to come out swinging after the Olympic games at Sochi conclude.
While the Iranian warships are certainly no match for our navy, it is important to understand that we are seeing a geopolitical game of 3-D chess play out before us. Like chess, moves are calculated far in advance and often, moves are made for purposes other than direct confrontation. Sometimes, moves are made to spread out the other player’s pieces. Make no mistake, the Iranian ships are pieces on this board and under Putin’s control.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
“Pay attention! You are seeing the opening acts to a global war, to World War III. Refer to the information I gave you right after the attacks in Benghazi, specifically to the information contained in ‘Lemmings…at the precipice of WW III’ and you will see that everything I divulged to you was precisely correct.
World War III will begin in Syria, and no one on the planet (and Americans in particular) will be left untouched by what is about to take place. This has been planned for some time, and we are now seeing it happen right in front of us.” Those are the words of a trusted source with deep ties to the intelligence community, before providing more insight into what we might expect as this ‘crisis’ escalates and “Syria explodes.”
As I wrote in that article published on October 8, 2012, “All that is needed now is for a dutiful media to present one image, a video, or some other proof that Assad or someone else is using, or has their hands on, unconventional weapons. This will provide the necessary pretext for the U.S. and NATO, to intervene and ramp up the war against Assad. The UN will assist, and the red line will then have been crossed.” That will be the trigger event for U.S. involvement, and the escalation into a global conflict.
We are now at that critical moment, as the images of the use of chemical weapons are all over the news, and all fingers are pointing to Assad as the culprit. Just as predicted, The Guardian among other media outlets reported that “David Cameron and Barack Obama moved the West closer to military intervention in Syria on Saturday as they agreed that last week’s alleged chemical weapon attacks by the Assad regime had taken the crisis into a new phase that merited a ‘serious response.’” But it’s a lie, a magic show, to keep people’s attention away from something much bigger on the horizon.
“The entire scenario we are seeing is one big magic act that began long ago, and Syria is just the ‘flash-bang’ diversion of the act, albeit a vital one. To understand how we got here is critically important, as it identifies the larger agenda or the big picture too few are seeing and too many are attempting to hide.
Consider the blatant continuity of agenda that has spanned several American presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Progressive and Conservative. This transcends political parties and the ‘political theater’ that has been designed to keep Americans occupied. Both political parties, however, are unified under a much larger globalist agenda, which explains why the policies of the Bush ‘dynasty’ have been exponentially increased under the Obama ‘regime.’
“Think about it. The anti-Assad ‘rebels’ are losing, they’re in retreat, because the exposure to the arms and weapons running from Benghazi caused the architects of this conflict to lay low for awhile. That gave us some time, but it did not change their objective of overthrowing Assad and taking Syria for the Muslim Brotherhood. The anti-Assad rebels cannot survive without Western assistance. Considering that, what sense would it make for Assad to use chemical weapons, especially as international observers were getting in position to investigate the situation, against rebels in retreat? It makes no sense, unless you understand the larger objective and the ‘big picture.’”
“Okay, so explain the big picture,” I asked my source. “And please do it in a way that I can explain it to my neighbor, or my family, so they too can understand what we’re seeing.” What follows is an uninterrupted monologue from my intelligence insider.
“Here’s the global picture. When you see it, it will make sense. This is about reshaping the entire power structure of not just the Middle East, but of the world.”
“Remember that the 2001 attacks against the U.S. was the catalyst for our military operations in Afghanistan, and then ostensibly Iraq under George W. Bush, a so-called ‘conservative republican.’ We could have gone into Afghanistan, cleaned up what we needed to, and come home. Instead, while still in Afghanistan, we went into Iraq after convincing the world they had weapons of mass destruction. Remember that George H. W. Bush, also a ‘conservative republican,’ engaged Iraq in ‘Gulf War I’ in 1990. Essentially, we’ve been in Iraq for the last quarter of a century! Why? Think about that.”
“And, we’ve been in Afghanistan for the last dozen years or so. Why? Oil and opium. It’s an ‘international bankers war.’ [Note that a recent report from ‘The Guerrilla Economist lays this out here, excerpted as follows]: “…[L]arge US military bases are on the very path of the purposed [Caspian Sea oil] pipeline. This as well as that some of the proceeds from the lucrative opium trade will find its way back to US banks which will launder the money in order to help fund Unocal in the purposed pipe building project. Win Win.”
“Oh, and by the way, if you mention Iran’s nuclear ambitions, why did we wait so long to really address this and keep Israel from doing so before any action would require a very protracted military campaign? Keep that in the back of your mind.”
“Now here’s another important part of the magic act. After eight years of George Bush, Americans were weary of war. So, a little known man named Barack Hussein Obama was selected to run against John McCain in 2008. Why Obama and not Hillary? Because the real power players needed a man with Muslim Brotherhood connections to accomplish what was needed in the Middle East. Think back to his Cairo speech. Consider that all of his campaign promises to end the wars were not only broken, but the wars and unrest were expanded by his policies, or the policies of those who put him into power.”
“So we’ve stayed in Afghanistan and in Iraq.” Then comes the Arab Spring, which was planned years in advance. It was not some serendipitously spontaneous movement by oppressed people longing for democracy, but a Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood plan to regain control of what was once the Ottoman Empire, this time on steroids. People must think bigger, outside of the confines of the Middle East.”
“As much as I don’t like the thought of saying this, Putin was correct in asking what sense it makes to destabilize the entire Middle East, especially Syria, a client state of Russia. In the context of regional affairs, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now, we are going to send cruise missiles into Syria… to hit what? Chemical weapons stockpiles stored in densely populated areas? How is this going to help the Syrians? The refugees fleeing from Syria?”
“I’ve told you, and you have written that we are implementing the Saudi agenda across the Middle East. But who is behind the Saudis? It is the international banking cartel, those ‘too big to jail,’ who are behind the Saudis. It’s their war and they’re funding all sides of the conflict. No matter what, they win. But what do they win?”
“Admittedly it’s difficult if not nearly impossible to tell all the players without a scorecard, and even then, the players will change their uniforms to keep everyone confused. But here’s the important part. Syria is a proxy state for Russia, as is Iran. China has interests in Iran as well. If you look at all of the major powers, they all have interests in the Middle East. So who will we, the U.S. ultimately be fighting when Syria explodes? Russia. And what will be the blowback? That’s important to understand, for it is also the objective.”
“None of what you are seeing is about fighting terrorism, or about helping the people of Syria. It’s about oil, energy and the global economic system. Conflict exists for the globalists to achieve their objective, and their objective is the implementation of a new economic system that will be a basket of currencies, or SDR (Special Drawing Rights). If you don’t know about SDRs, just equate it to the euro, but on a global scale.”
They will usher this in by striking at the United States much like the U.S. took down the old Soviet Union. They will target our economy through oil, cheap oil, from Saudi Arabia. Remember, Russia is the world’s largest exporter of oil, neck and neck with the Saudis. But, the Saudis’ oil wells have been damaged and their ‘lift costs’ are increasing.”
“So, what we are about to see and experience in a most painful way is the destruction of the U.S. economy, the intentional killing of the U.S. dollar, by having it replaced as the world’s reserve currency, and replaced with a basket of currencies (SDR) that is much easier to control.”
“This is all about the conversion of world’s economic trading mechanism from a U.S. dollar-based system to a SDR. The Middle East and Syria is merely the catalyst for is implementation. The ‘flash-bang’ of the magic act. And once this catalytic action is started, we cannot go back. War in the Middle East and particularly Syria is the catalyst that will disrupt transactions and commerce all over the world. And few will see it coming, or know what hit them.”
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago (Here, Here and Here). The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “…the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
