The following video is an excellent analysis from Truthstream Media regarding the ‘globalist’ drive to war on behalf of the ‘New World Order’. Rather than going into definitions and commentary regarding who and what is this ‘new world order’ – Fearless Freedom Press has already covered that definition – we’ll let the narrator explain the goings-on of this nefarious cabal in the ‘trump’ white house.
One of the most outstanding points relates to the 2 February 2016 online post written by Tony Cartalucci for the Land Destroyer Report. This is in reference to the ‘trump administration’s’ betrayal of the Iran deal. One has to remember that the attacks on Syria are directly related to Iran as Iran is one of Syria’s only allies in the Middle East. The Western media spares no moment in accusing Iran of being the sole sponsor of terrorism in that region – and, by extension, the power behind Assad’s Syria. Of course, none of this is substantiated in any way – quite the contrary – but watching the Truthstream Media video will explain a great deal in this regard.
Here, we’d just like to quote that Cartalucci entry as it is quite relevant to where things are on 16 April 2018:
US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.
In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a “superb offer” would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner portraying Iran as ungrateful:
..any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
The so-called “Iran deal,” introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with.
In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:
Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened … As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.
Flynn’s statement is particularly surreal – considering Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh – if only symbolically – in response to Saudi Arabia’s aggression – Flynn still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia’s warship constitutes justification for putting Iran “on notice.”
Recognize the similarities with this ‘strategy’ and the recent trump narrative regarding the strike against Syria:
One year ago, Assad launched a savage chemical weapons attack against his own innocent people. The United States responded with 58 missile strikes that destroyed 20 percent of the Syrian Air Force.
Last Saturday, the Assad regime again deployed chemical weapons to slaughter innocent civilians — this time, in the town of Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus. This massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.
The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons. Establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the United States. The combined American, British, and French response to these atrocities will integrate all instruments of our national power — military, economic, and diplomatic. We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.
I also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping, and financing the criminal Assad regime.
To Iran, and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children?
No amount of American blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East. It’s a troubled place. We will try to make it better, but it is a troubled place. The United States will be a partner and a friend, but the fate of the region lies in the hands of its own people.
In the last century, we looked straight into the darkest places of the human soul. We saw the anguish that can be unleashed and the evil that can take hold. By the end of the World War I, more than one million people had been killed or injured by chemical weapons. We never want to see that ghastly specter return.
So today, the nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshaled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality.
The 2017 attack on the Syrian airbase – based on completely fabricated arguments – was the ‘good deal’ ultimatum, if you will. The 13 Friday 2018 assault:
Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the [Syrians] “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
Without further ado, The 2017 Truthstream Media video, Trump’s New World Order: