 |
| source |
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
The mainstream media has been backing ElBaradei’s ownership of the protests, hailing this Nobel Laurette and former UN IAEA director as the potential next president of Egypt and the “hero” of the protests. The New York Times refers to him as the “Nobelist” portraying him as standing “toe-to-toe” with hundreds of riot police and promising to run for president if and only if elections were “free and fair.”
While ElBaradei poses as a critic of the United States, it is not because of their meddling with Middle Eastern affairs, it is because they are not meddling enough. ElBaradei berates the United States for not intervening in what he calls “social disintegration, economic stagnation, and political repression” in Egypt. Apparently ElBaradei isn’t the only one who thinks so either.
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) senior fellow, Project for a New American Century signatory, and Bush wrangler Elliott Abrams elaborated on the sort of “intervention” the United States should be committed to in his piece “Less ‘Engagement,’ More Democracy” in the New York Times. In his piece he criticizes the current policy of engaging with nations he deems repressive regimes as equals and calls for a revisit to George Bush’s “freedom agenda.” In other words – the export of “democracy” that has brought America the trillion dollar military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan at the cost of thousands of US soldiers’ lives and the lives of millions of foreigners killed, maimed, or displaced.
Ultimately the “freedom agenda” has created puppet governments and sweeping economic reforms giving globalist corporate cartels free reign in these “importers of democracy.” Those that remember Paul Bremer’s Colalition Provisional Authority, may also recall the various “liberalizations” imposed upon Iraq including 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies and immunity granted to foreign contractors from Iraqi law.
In the end, the “freedom agenda” is nothing more than 21st century gunboat diplomacy coupled with the one-sided “treaties” the European imperialists imposed across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.
Fellow CFR policy wonk, Robert Danin echos Abrams’ sentiments regarding the freedom agenda by regretting how President Obama had backed away from it during his 2009 speech in Cairo, and how interesting it is now that the administration seems to be interested in perhaps adopting it. He then goes on to explain how the protests are unprecedented, in that they are concerning not anit-American or anti-Israeli causes, but directed at inward problems at home.
With Tunisia and now Egypt internally infighting, a collective regional division seems to be developing. It is no secret the globalists via the United States and Israeli governments, want regime change in Iran and to desperately halt their nuclear program. Elliot Abrams in his New York Times piece states explicitly “our ultimate goal for Iran is not a nuclear deal with the ayatollahs but freedom for its people under a government they choose in honest elections.” Newsweek goes one step further and reports on a covert war against Iran’s nuclear program already well underway. Seymour Hersh reported as early as 2008 that the US was conducting military operations in Iran.
The floundering efforts to achieve the globalists’ goals with Iran, now spanning several years, may have spurred the real policy makers, the globalist think tanks, to consider a wider regional campaign of destabilization and the installation of more reliable and more zealous allies to build the needed coalition to confront an unmovable Iran. At any rate, any opposition for the globalists’ next phase in the Middle East will be muted with regimes across the region battling for their very survival.
Mohamed ElBaradei, then literally sitting on the International Crisis Group’s Board of Trustees with the likes of George Soros, would not only be a trusted candidate to sow instability throughout Egypt, but would make an equally trustworthy leader of a pliable proxy regime to turn against Iran, Russia, and China. An ElBaradei controlled Egypt could equally be turned against disruptive members of the other globalist pet project Egypt is conveniently positioned to deal with, the African Union. And last but not least, Egypt controls the Suez Canal. Greater control over Egypt means greater control over the passage of freight through the canal.
Finally, globalist think-tank, the Brookings Institute, chimes in claiming Egypt’s new opposition leader is indeed Mohamed ElBaradei and claims he is already reaching out for ties and a loose alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremely large and influential opposition organization in Egypt. The Brookings Institute feigns the same ignorance as the rest of the mainstream media regarding ElBaradei’s position in the International Crisis Group by claiming it will be Egypt that will decide the outcome “not Washington.” Brookings also laments that Israel’s government holds a huge stake in the outcome of Egypt’s unrest but has “absolutely no ability to influence the course of events.”
It should then comfort Israel and the Brookings Institute to know that ElBaradei is working so closely with US policy makers via the International Crisis Group and that his sentiments are echoed by America’s “Neo-Conservative” establishment. In other words, Israel and America have their foot in the door and seem not to even realize it. The wiser suspects they most certainly do realize it.
Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer.
Related article by Tony Cartalucci
All is Not What it Seems in Egyptian Clashes
RELATED ARTICLE:
The Tipping Point Has Passed: Sweeping Change is at Hand
Be the first to comment on "The Globalists’ Egyptian Gambit: ElBaradei"