The template for such covert regime changes for decades was developed in the Pentagon, the American intelligence agencies and various research institutes such as the RAND Corporation, beginning with the may 1968 destabilization of the reign of de Gaulle in France. For the first time since the moment about twenty years ago began a US-backed regime change in Eastern Europe, Washington launched several simultaneous operations in many countries of the region. This strategy was born from a certain desperation and embodied not without significant risk for the Pentagon and for the long-term agenda of wall Street. It is still unclear what she will bring to the peoples of the region and the world.

Although the final result of violent street protests in Cairo and across Egypt and the Islamic world remains unclear, in General terms, a secret U.S. strategy are already apparent.

No one can dispute the real reasons why millions of people take to the streets, risking their lives. No one can justify the atrocities of the Mubarak regime, his torture and suppression of dissent. No one can dispute the explosive rise in food prices because commodity speculators in Chicago and on wall Street, as well as the conversion of American farmland to the insane cultivation of corn for production of fuel ethanol has increased grain prices up to the ceiling. Egypt is the world's largest importer of wheat, mostly from the USA. Chicago wheat futures rose by a staggering 74% between June and November 2010, which led to inflation of prices for food in Egypt is approximately 30% despite government subsidies.

Widely ignored CNN, BBC and other Western media in a series of events in Egypt is the fact that regardless of the excesses within the country Mubarak represented a major obstacle to total U.S. programs in the region.

It is no exaggeration to say that relations between Obama and Mubarak were ice cold from the beginning. Mubarak was strongly opposed to Obama policies on Iran and its efforts to combat Iran's nuclear programme, against the policies of Obama in the Gulf, Syria and Lebanon and the Palestinians. (i) He was an unpleasant thorn to the overall program of Washington for the entire region, Washington project of the greater Middle East, recently replaced by a softer-sounding term "New middle East".

Like the real factors that caused the exit to the streets millions of people across North Africa and the middle East, so it is impossible to ignore the fact that Washington chooses the time and method, trying to shape the final outcome of comprehensive regime change and destabilization throughout the Islamic world. The day surprisingly well-coordinated national demonstrations demanding Mubarak to resign, and the key members of the Egyptian military command including chief of General staff Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Enan was in Washington as guests of the Pentagon.That conveniently neutralized the decisive force of the army to stop the increasing protests against Mubarak in critical early days. (ii)

This strategy was to different files of the State Department and the Pentagon, at least for 10 years or longer. Once in 2001, George Bush declared war on terror, this strategy was called the project of the greater Middle East.

Today he is known under a less threatening name of "New middle East". We are talking about strategies to crack the States of the region from Morocco to Afghanistan, the region, a particular friend of David Rockefeller Samuel Huntington in his infamous essay "the Clash of civilizations" essay in the journal Foreign Affairs.

The rise of Egyptand?

The current scenario of the Pentagon for Egypt reads like a Hollywood script of Cecil B. DeMille, only the scenario with actors from millions of Twitter-savvy well-trained youth, the network of operatives of the "Muslim brotherhood" working with the military trained by the Americans. Starring a new movie at the moment is none other than the Nobel peace prize winner who appears in time to pull together all the lines of confrontation between the old regime in what looks like a smooth transition to the new Egypt during the self-proclaimed liberal democratic revolution.

Preliminarily, it is useful to consider the scenery against which the action unfolds before considering what long-term strategic plan may turn out to the Islamic world from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and ultimately to the Islamic population of Central Asia from the borders of China and Russia.

Soft revolution Washington

The protests that led to the sudden resignation of the entire Egyptian government by President Mubarak, took place immediately after the stampede of the Tunisian Ben Ali to Saudi Arabia in exile and were not "spontaneous", as they paint the White house Obama, the state Department Hilary Clinton, or CNN, BBC and other major media in the West.

They are organized in a Ukrainian-style high-tech electronic equipment with large online networks of youth-related Mohamed ElBaradei and the banned and covered with mysterious darkness of the sect of the "Muslim brotherhood", whose connection with the British and American intelligence and Freemasonry are widely reported. (iii)

At the moment the movement against Mubarak looks not as a threat to American influence in the region, rather the contrary. It has all the characteristics of other supported U.S. operations for regime change on the model of the 2003-2004 color revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and the failed green revolution against Iran's Ahmadinejad in 2009.

The call for an Egyptian General strike and Day of anger 25th of January, which has caused mass protests demanding the resignation of Mubarak, was made by the organization based in Facebook and calling itself "Movement of April 6". The protests were so significant, and well-organized, which forced Mubarak to send his Cabinet to resign and to appoint a new Vice-President, General Omar Suleiman, the former intelligence Minister.

"April 6 movement" is headed by one Ahmed Maher Ibrahim, a 29-year-old civil engineer, who created a page in Facebook to support the call for workers to strike on 6 April 2008.

According to estimates of the New York Times, from 2009, some 800,000 Egyptians, most of them young people, were already users of Facebook or Twitter. In an interview with Washington-based Carnegie Foundation, the head of the "movement of April 6" Maher stated, "Being the first youth movement in Egypt that uses communication via the Internet, for example via Twitter, we seek to promote democracy by encouraging public participation in the political process". (iv)

Maher then stated that his "Movement of April 6" is supported by the former head of the UN Agency for atomic energy (IAEA) and declared a candidate for President of Egypt, ElBaradei and his coalition national Association on climate change (NAC). The latter includes among others George Ishak, leader of the movement "Kefaya" (the Movement for change in Egypt) and Mohamed Saad El-Katatni, President of the parliamentary bloc of odious Ivanov (brothers) or "the Muslim brotherhood". (v)

Today "Kefaya" stands at the center of Egypt's unfolding events. Far in the background are viewed more restrained "Muslim brotherhood".

ElBaradei currently is projected as the Central figure in a future Egyptian parliamentary democratic change. Interestingly, although the last thirty years he lived in Egypt, he has the support of all conceivable Egyptian political spectrum from Communists to "Muslim Brothers", "Cepii" and young activists of the"April 6 Movement". (vi) Judging by the calm behavior of El-Baradei in an interview with CNN these days, he probably also has the support of leading Egyptian generals, for some reason opposition to the rule of Mubarak and the support of some very influential persons in Washington.

Nnasilstvennaia war “Kefaya"-the Pentagon

"Kefaya" stands at the heart of mobilizing the Egyptian protest demonstrations that support the candidacy of ElBaradei. The word "Kefaya" translates as "Enough!".

Curiously, the planners at Washington National endowment for democracy (NED) (vii ) and related color revolution NGOs apparently were unable to come up with new catchy names for their Egyptian color revolution. In November 2003 the rose Revolution in Georgia, the US-financed NGOs chose the catchy word "Kmara!", to refer a youth movement aimed at regime change. Kmara in Georgian also means "Enough!"

Just as "Kefaya", "Kmara" in Georgia was also trained funded from Washington coaches from the NED and other groups such as the albert Einstein Institute Gene sharp, who use so-called "non-violence as a tactic of war." (viii)

Various youth network in Georgia, as the "Kefaya" have been carefully prepared as a loose, decentralized network of cells, deliberately avoiding a Central organization that can be defeated that would have led the movement to collapse. Training activists in methods of nonviolent resistance were carried out in sports facilities, which gave him a harmless appearance. Activists also underwent training in political marketing, in the field of media relations, mobilization and recruiting skills.

Officially called "Kefali" "the Egyptian movement for change". It was founded in 2004 by Egyptian intellectuals in the house of Abul Ala Abu-MADI, leader of the party "al-Wasat", created, according to some reports, the "Muslim brotherhood". (ix) "Kefaya" was created as a coalition movement United only by the call to end the rule of Mubarak.

"Kefaya" within amorphous "movement of April 6" at an early stage, gaining points in the new social media and digital technologies as the primary means of mobilization. In particular, very professionally and skillfully used political blogs, posting necesariamente videos and photos on YouTube. At a rally already in early December 2009 "Kefaya" announced support for the candidacy of Mohammed al-Baradei for the Egyptian elections in 2011. (x)

RAND and "Kefaya"

The RAND Corporation conducted detailed studies of the "Kefaya". This study RAND "Kefaya", says the Corporation was "organized by the Ministry of defense, the joint staff, Joint military commands, the Navy, marine corps, defense agencies and the defense intelligence community". (xi)

It is hardly possible to find a more beautiful bouquet democratically oriented gentlemen and ladies.

In his report to the Pentagon in 2008, the RAND researchers noted the following in relation to Egyptian "Kifaya":

"The United States profess an interest in greater democratization in the Arab world, especially after the attacks of September 2001, terrorists from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. This interest was part of efforts to reduce destabilizing political violence and terrorism. As noted by President George W. Bush noted in a 2003 address to the National endowment of democracy, "until such time as the middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export"(the White House, 2003). The United States has used various means to carry out democratization, including a military intervention that, though launched for other reasons, had as one of its ultimate goals the establishment of a democratic government.

However, the indigenous movement for reform is the best opportunity for progress towards democracy in their own country". (xii)

RAND researchers have spent years perfecting techniques of unconventional regime change under the name "swarming," the method of deploying mass influx associated by means of digital communication young people in short and sudden protests like the behavior of a swarm of bees. (xiii)

Washington and the pack of NGOs that preaches "human rights", "democracy" and "nonviolence," for which he's looking, in the last decade increasingly relied on sophisticated "spontaneous" fuelled by local discontent by protest movements to create Pro-Washington regime change and to promote a global programme of the Pentagon full-spectrum dominance. As affirmed in its concluding recommendations to the Pentagon, the RAND study on "Kefaya":

"The US government already supports reform through organizations such as the United States Agency for international development and the United Nations development Programme. Given the current negative attitude of the population of the region to the United States, U.S. support for reform initiatives is best carried out through nongovernmental and non-profit organizations." (xiv)

The RAND 2008 study was even more specific about the future support to the government of the USA of Egyptian and other "reform" movements:

"The US government should encourage nongovernmental organizations to offer training to reformers, including [give] guidance on the creation of a coalition, and how to deal with internal differences in pursuit of democratic reforms. Academic institutions (or even nongovernmental organizations associated with US political parties, such as the international Republican Institute or the national democratic Institute of international Affairs) could carry out such training, which would have provided reform leaders a means to resolve their differences peacefully and democratically. <...>

Fourth, the United States should help reformers obtain and use information technology, perhaps by offering incentives for American companies to invest in infrastructure of communications and information technologies. American information technology companies could also help to ensure that the web sites of reformers continued to work steadily, and to invest in technologies such as anonymizers that could provide some cover from attention of the government. This can also be achieved by the use of technological security to prevent sabotage of web sites of reformers from modes". (xv)

According to the authors, this monograph on "Kefaya" was prepared in 2008 by the Initiative of the alternative strategy of the Research Department of the RAND national security, sponsored by the Office of technology for rapid response in the office of the Deputy Minister of defense procurement, technology and logistics.

Initiative alternative strategies to put all points over "i", includes "research on creative use of the media, radicalization of youth, the involvement of civilians in stopping the sectarian violence, providing social services for the mobilization of dissatisfied sectors of the indigenous population, and on top of all this — the study of alternative movements. "(xvi)

In may 2009, shortly before Obama's trip to Cairo to meet Mubarak, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a number of young Egyptian activists in Washington under the auspices of "freedom house", another Washington-based NGO for the protection of "human rights" with a long history of involvement in the changes of regime in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and other color revolutions. Clinton and acting assistant Secretary of state for Middle East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman met the sixteen activists at the end of a two-month "fellowship" organized in the framework of the program "New generation", "freedom house". (xvii)

"Freedom house" and the Washington government-funded NGOs are behind the regime change — the national endowment for democracy (NED) are in the heart of the revolt that is now sweeping across the Islamic world. They rule the geographic context of what George W. Bush proclaimed after 2001 as a project of the greater Middle East to bring "democracy" and "liberal free market" economic reform to the Islamic countries from Afghanistan to Morocco. When Washington talks about introducing a "liberal free market reform" people should be afraid. This is little more than code words to bring these countries under the yoke of the dollar system and all that would follow.

Washington's NED in a shared program

If we drew up a list of countries in the region experiencing popular movements of protest since the start of the Tunisian and Egyptian events and overlay them on the map, we find an almost perfect coincidence of the protesters today, countries and original map of the Washington greater Middle East, which was first introduced by George W. Bush after 2001.

NED Washington quietly has been preparing a wave of regime destabilization in North Africa and the middle East, since the U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001-2003 On the list of Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Sudan, as well as, interestingly, and Israel. By coincidence almost all of these countries today there is a "spontaneous" popular uprisings for regime change.

The international Republican Institute and national democratic Institute for international Affairs mentioned in the RAND study about "Kefaya", are subsidiary organizations based in Washington and funded by the US Congress NED.

NED is coordinating Washington Agency for destabilization and regime change. He is active from Tibet to Ukraine, from Venezuela to Tunisia, from Kuwait to Morocco to the changing world after the collapse of the Soviet Union and leading him into a New world order, call it George Bush senior in a speech in Congress in 1991. (xviii)

As the architect and first head of the NED, Allen Weinstein told the Washington Post in 1991: "Much of what we do today, 25 years ago was done secretly by the CIA". (xix)

The NED Board of Directors includes or has included former defense Minister and zamglavy the CIA Frank Carlucci of Carlyle Group, retired General Wesley Clark of NATO; hawk-neocon Zalmay Khalilzad, who was the architect of the Afghan invasion George Bush and later Ambassador to Afghanistan as well as in occupied Iraq. Another member of the management Board NED — VIN Weber, co-chair with former U.S. Secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a major independent task force on U.S. policy regarding reform in the Arab world and was one of the founders of the ultra-militant think tank "project for a new American century" with Dick Cheney and Don rumsfelda, which advocated forced regime change in Iraq in 1998. (xx)

NED, presumably, is a private, non-governmental, non-profit Fund, but receives an annual appropriation for its international activities from the U.S. Congress. The national endowment for democracy depends on the American taxpayer funding, but because NED is not a government institution, it is not subject to ordinary oversight of Congress.

The money NED is sent to target countries through four "core Fund": the national democratic Institute for international Affairs, linked with the Democratic party, the international Republican Institute, affiliated with the Republican party, the American center for international labor solidarity, associated with the Federation "the American Federation of labor - Congress of industrial unions" of the United States and with the U.S. Department of State, and the Center for international private enterprise, the market associated with the U.S. chamber.

The late political analyst Barbara Conry said:

"NED has taken advantage of its alleged private status to influence foreign elections, an activity that is beyond the scope of USAID or USIA and would be possible only through the secret operation of the CIA. Such activity, it should be noted, would be illegal for foreign groups operating in the United States." (xxi)

It is noteworthy that NED describes his various current projects in Islamic countries including, in addition to Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. In short, in almost every country that is currently experiencing the consequences of the sweeping wave of protests that engulfed the middle East and North Africa, NED target region. (xxii)

In 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush gave a speech in NED. In a long and confusing discourse, which as a new enemy equated "Islamic radicalism" to the evils of communism and used a deliberately softer term "wider middle East" instead of the greater Middle East, which already caused great resentment in the Islamic world, Bush stated:

"The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to block future militant recruits by replacing hatred and resentment of democracy and hope throughout the middle East. It is a difficult and long-term project, but he has no alternatives. Our future and the future of the region are linked. If the middle East will grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery, while radicals would inflate the resentments of millions, then that part of the world will be the source of endless conflict and growing danger for our generation and the next. If the peoples of the region to allow the right to choose their own destiny, and to promote it with their own energy and participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end ... to Reassure our friends in the middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terrorism on the basis of respect for human rights and the choice of its own people. To stand with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that today's dissidents are tomorrow's democratic leaders... " (xxiii)

The American project for a Greatth Nearth Eastand

Distribution operations Washington for regime change from Tunisia to Sudan, from Yemen to Egypt and Syria are best viewed in the context of the long strategy of the Pentagon and the State Department for the entire Islamic world from Kabul in Afghanistan to Rabat in Morocco.

Rough outlines of the Washington strategy, based in part on their successful regime change in the countries of the former Warsaw Pact Communist bloc of Eastern Europe, were outlined by a former consultant to the Pentagon neo-conservative Richard Perle, but also Bush official Douglas Feith, in a recommendation document prepared in 1996 for the incoming Israeli government of Likud party Benjamin Netanyahu.

This policy recommendation has been called "a Complete break: a New strategy for securing the realm" (A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm). It was the first document of the Washington think tank, openly calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for an aggressive military stance toward the Palestinians, to attack Syria and Syrian targets in Lebanon. (xxiv) As reported, the Netanyahu government at the time put the report of the pearl Feith shelved as too risky.

By the time of the events of 11 September 2001 and returned to Washington super-hawkish neoconservatives around Perle and others, the Bush administration has set the highest priority for the extended version of the report of the Perle-Feith, calling the plan his Project of the greater Middle East. Feit was appointed by Bush to the post of Deputy defense Minister.

Behind the facade of cries about democratic reforms of autocratic regimes in the entire region of the greater middle East was and is the plan on expansion of U.S. military control and the breaking state of the economies of several States from Morocco to the borders of China and Russia.

In may 2003, before the dust settled from the American bombing of Baghdad, as a great friend of democracy President George Bush announced a policy of "spreading democracy" to the entire region and explicitly noted that this means "the establishment of a free trade area U.S.-middle East within a decade." (xxv)

Before the G8 summit in sea island, Georgia, in June 2004, Washington issued a working document, "Partnership and G8 greater Middle East". In the section entitled "Economic opportunities" was held dramatic appeal of Washington to "economic transformation similar in magnitude to those undertaken in the former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe".

This American document has stated that the key to this will be strengthening the private sector as the way to prosperity and democracy. He falsely claimed that this will be done via the miracle of microfinance, which, as has been alleged, "for only 100 million dollars a year for five years out of poverty will rise 1200 thousand entrepreneurs (750 000 of them women) with $ 400 credit to everyone." (xxvi)

The American plan involved the transfer of regional banking and financial Affairs in new institutions ostensibly international but, like world Bank and IMF, de facto controlled by Washington, including WTO. The purpose of this long-term project Washington was to fully control the revenue streams from the sale of oil, to completely control all the countries of the region, from Morocco to the borders of China. This project is as brazen as it is hopeless.

After this document was leaked in 2004 to the Arab newspaper "al-Hayat", across the region began the widespread opposition to him, mainly the protest caused the definition of the American greater Middle East. As noted in the French Le Monde Diplomatique in April 2004, "besides the Arab countries, this plan covers Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Israel, whose only common denominator is only that they lie in the zone where hostility to the US is strongest, in which Islamic fundamentalism in its anti-Western form is most common." (xxvii) it Should be noted that a NED with a number of programs are also very active within Israel.

It is noteworthy that in 2004 had a fierce opposition to the project of two middle East leaders — Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) and the king of Saudi Arabia — which forced the ideological zealots of the Bush administration to temporarily move the Project for a Greater Middle East into the background.

Work?

At the end of this article it is unclear what will be the final result of the last US-led destabilization in the Islamic world. It is not clear what will result for Washington and defenders of the New world order will dominate US. Their obvious agenda is the creation of a Greater Middle East under sustained American authority, which holds the main control of future movements of capital and energy flows of a future China, Russia and the European Union. Otherwise these countries will one day be able to dream about the refusal of American rules.

The development has great potential importance for the future of Israel. In the words of one American commentator, "the Israeli calculation today is that if Mubarak will leave (this is usually stated as "if America will allow Mubarak to leave"), leaving Egypt. If Tunisia go away (in the same language), Morocco and Algeria go. Turkey has already gone (to blame only Israelis themselves). Syria did not (partly because Israel wanted to turn it off from access to the waters of the sea of Galilee). The Gaza Strip passed into the hands of Hamas, and the Palestinian authority may go soon also (to Hamas?). That leaves Israel amid the ruins of a policy of military dominance in the region." (xxviii)

The Washington strategy of "creative destruction" is clearly causing sleepless nights not only in the Islamic world, but also, according to rumors, in tel Aviv, and ultimately also in Beijing and Moscow and across Central Asia.

Notes

Source: http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/exclusive/view/55198/

Tags: Africa