Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message --- -Caveat Lector- First, some conspiracy-theory musings.
Further down, a relevant excerpt from a "global strategy analysis."
Remember how, first thing after removing the Taliban, Washington suggested, as new head of state in a "liberated" Afghanistan, an aged heir to the Afghan throne -- ostensibly to serve as rallying point for rival tribal factions? Well, it has become clear that, for the US and Britain, as for Israel and Jordan, "constitutional monarchy" (the BRITISH, not American, model of "democracy") is in fact the preferred form of governance for Middle East territories "liberated" by those I'll call the "Cabal."
The indications are as follows: On the one hand, the Cabal issues position papers
stressing the need to extend their "war on terrorism," inaugurated in Afghanistan, further --using pre-emptive military force-- into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia, while on the other hand, more gloved, it has been negotiating with members of the Hashemite family (Muslim "holy blood") for their eventual return to [puppet] power in the old "mandates" (not coincidentally, modern Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia) that were originally Hashemite kingdoms -- until the Cold War era, when their monarchies were overthrown, in Communist-supported anti-Western "nationalist" military coups, and replaced by secularized "socialist" nation-states.
(Or in the case of Saudi Arabia, overthrown by a rival dynasty of lesser pedigree, since the Wahhabis now in control of Mecca are of later descent from Mohammed than the Hashemites, who had been given priority since at least the 16th Century. )
Why, in the 21st Century, are the Americans as well as the British, the Israelis as well as Jordan, now restoring emphasis on "holy blood" / "hereditary right"?
The Israeli interest, subdued or even secretive until recently, might have something to do with the Orthodox Rabbis' anticipation of "True" Israel, replete with a Messiah of Davidic lineage -- which has its mirror-image in their Islamic neighbors' need for a unifying principle, in the person of an Imam in direct descent from Mohammed, that might restore the Golden Age of pan-Arabic Empire, less fragmented than today.
Perhaps the Orthodox Rabbis in Israeli give weight to Biblical prophecies regarding the re-binding-together of the "two branches," Judah and "Joseph" (the Ten Tribes), in the Last Days. Or see that as symbolic of some ultimate reconciliation between Jacob and Esau, the competing "children of Abraham." NOT very likely, that!
A unified --or even loosely confederated-- Arab culture would most certainly be the greatest possible threat to the Jewish state, so Zionists can only go so far in their support of Hashemites or other dynasts, lest a Kingdom evolve in time to become an Empire. Worse yet, if Israel should one day confront its mirror-image among Arabs in a Muslim theocratic Empire fueled by fanatic fundamentalist devotion to their God's "Law"--! Such dynasties in the distant past were sometimes cosmopolitan, but just as often state-sponsors of international "terrorism." Is their support only for a less theologically driven, more secular, Arab confederacy under the Hashemites?
And in this new map of the Middle East redrawn by the Cabal, where does IRAN fit in -- hemmed in by Hashemite strongholds to the west, "Kurdistan" to the north, and between itself and India only Afghanistan (gone) and Pakistan (going) to the east.
The Cabal has spoken and insisted that Iran's clerical rulers have to go. So --in keeping with the monarchophilia seen everywhere else-- it's now being proposed that some scion of the not-very-legitimately-royal Pahlavis return to power as a Shah.
An "Islamic bloc" (a kind of NAFTA for Coalition capital and Arab consumerism?) seems to be a logical step in the Cabal's long-term vision of a world in which the West will need a buffer against China and India, one day two rival super-powers.
Israel, however, doesn't easily fit into that equation. A "balance of power" among world-class cultures in Realpolitik may seem feasible to global policy strategists in America and Europe, but Israel knows it won't work in the Middle East, where the balance of population is skewed 10 to 1 in favor of Arab, not Jewish, dominance. Why, then, invest in monarchism, hereditary right, "holy blood" and its associated Messianism, courting the Hashemites as partners and as "co-rulers" of the Middle East, turning back the clock to the earliest days of the British Mandate (and of European colonial rule), when such a strategy could backfire so disastrously?
=================================================
http://www.oxan.com/sample-ma.html
Oxford Analytica* Brief
IRAQ: After SaddamScenarios. Three broad scenarios convey the range of possible outcomes to a successful [Iraqi] regime change strategy:
September 18, 2002
SUBJECT: Scenarios for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
Authoritarian. Under this scenario, the existing Iraqi regime would be replaced, but with something partially resembling it in the form of a centralised state willing to resort to authoritarian methods. The West might not find such an outcome palatable, but would be powerless to prevent the emergence of such a regime, short of occupying and administering the country for an extended period of time, something it is most unlikely to want to do. Such an outcome would almost certainly find favour among regional states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which have sound reasons for fearing the alternatives. By contrast, Israel, which fears a strong Iraq, would dissent.
Nevertheless, there would almost certainly be important differences between such a regime and that of Saddam Hussein:
*It would be more collegial in organisation, at least over the medium term, pending the working out of internal power balances.
*While prepared to resort to armed force and internal surveillance, it is unlikely to be as brutal as its predecessor: it would have learnt some of the lessons about new international norms lost on Saddam.
*It would be much better disposed towards the international community and in particular the United States. Despite popular resentment over the effects of sanctions, good relations with Washington would be needed to remove them, reschedule international debt and begin reconstruction.
Constitutionalist. This is the outcome favoured by the US administration in its public utterances. Such a formula would have the advantage of being nominally inclusive of all of the different ethnic and confessional communities in Iraq. However, such a process of inclusivity would also imply losers, notably the Sunni Arab section of the population, that has traditionally dominated government. Sunni Arabs and others would view the establishment of a democratic system as a formal device through which to enshrine rule by the country’s Shia, who comprise some 60% of the population. A constitutional process incorporating a strong federalist dimension, as demanded by Iraq’s Kurds, would be regarded as the thin end of a secessionist wedge. The implication of either Shia pre-eminence or Kurdish secessionism would be treated negatively by Iraq’s neighbours, notably Saudi Arabia and Turkey respectively.
One formula being contemplated in influential circles in Washington is the idea of the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy, which presided over Iraq until it fell in an army coup in 1958.
Sherif Ali, who claims to be the closest surviving relative of family members murdered during the coup, is one of the main figures in the US-backed Iraqi National Congress.
Moreover, Prince Hassan of Jordan, also a Hashemite, and who was the country’s long-time crown prince before being edged out of the succession by an ailing King Hussein in 1998-99, was a recent visitor to Washington before ostentatiously visiting an Iraqi opposition meeting in London over the summer.
Several advantages have been touted in favour of a restoration of a Hashemite monarch:
*It would prove a unifying force, especially [theologically] (the Hashemites tracing their lineage back to the tribe of the prophet and hence to a time before the Sunni-Shia schism), but also tribally in that, as outsiders (they originally came from the Hejaz in what is now Saudi Arabia) they are not closely identified with any one tribal or provincial grouping in the country;
*It would prove a stabilising force, in that a constitutional monarchy would provide ballast for a political system within which others would compete for the right to govern the country.
*It would be welcomed by powerful interests further afield, notably Israel (a peace treaty having been signed between Israel and Hashemite Jordan in 1994), but also by the United States and the United Kingdom, which generally have had a happy track record of dealing with the Hashemites.
However, a Hashemite restoration would also be problematic:
*Aspiring strongmen in Iraq would oppose it and seek the position of unchecked head of the executive for themselves.
*It might open up divisions within the Hashemites, most obviously between Sherif Ali and Prince Hassan and their supporters, but also more widely between Hassan and King Abdallah of Jordan.
*Regional powers would oppose it, notably Saudi Arabia (whose rulers are old dynastic enemies of the Hashemites and would fear that Hashemite Jordan and Iraq would conspire to reacquire the Hejaz); Iran (in view of the heightened speculation over the last year about a possible restoration of the Shah’s son); and Egypt (which regards itself as the leading Arab power in the region and so would perceive Hashemite ascendancy as inimical to its interests).
____________________
*Founded in 1975, Oxford Analytica is "an international consulting firm which provides business and political leaders with timely analysis of worldwide political, economic and social developments. [It] acts as a bridge between the world of ideas and the world of enterprise. One of its major assets is an extensive international network which draws on the scholarship and expertise of over 1,000 senior members at Oxford and other leading universities around the world, as well as think-tanks and institutes of international standing. Clients of Oxford Analytica are able to integrate the judgements drawn from this unparalleled resource into their own decision-making process. Clients include multinational corporations, major banks, national governments and international institutions in more than 30 countries."
The Managing Director of "Oxford Analytica" is David R. Young. Here's his CV: "1965-69, Associate at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (New York); 1969-73, Assistant to Dr Henry Kissinger, National Security Council, Washington DC; Lecturer in Politics at Queen's College, Oxford University."
<A HREF="">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
