Obama-Bibi dustup is just Kabuki Theater

[planosteve]

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost - up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.

However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution's policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retrospect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength - which according to Brookings - is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest - considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel - is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a "unilateral" Israeli first strike on Iran - an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

The Brookings Institution's 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible "peaceful" options before resorting to violent regime change.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/03/obama-netanyahu-fallout-is-theater.html

[John in Plano]

Which Path to Persia? objectively presents the most important policy options available to the United States in crafting a new strategy toward Iran. It considers four different types of solutions: diplomacy, military, regime change, and containment. Among the diplomatic options are one approach that would employ "bigger carrots and bigger sticks" and a strategy of pure engagement that would abandon sanctions and focus on changing Iran's strategic perceptions. The various military options include a full-scale invasion, an air campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear program, and allowing an Israeli air strike against the same. Regime change could take the form of triggering a popular revolution, supporting an insurgency, or aiding a military coup. Last, containment would involve deterring Iran from trying to wield a future nuclear arsenal while hindering its ability to cause trouble in the region.

As Iran moves forward with its nuclear program, the urgency increases for the United States to implement a new policy. This distinguished group of authors, all senior fellows with the Saban Center at Brookings, points out that no one strategy is ideal and that all involve heavy costs, significant risks, and potentially painful trade-offs. With an eye to these perils, they address how the different options could be combined to produce an integrated strategy that makes the best choice from a bad lot.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/books ... thtopersia

[BigTex]

Tom Friedman, NY Times: "For some people in the middle east, Mutually Assured Destruction is an invitation to a party."