The leaders of the New World Order are clearly engaged in major and intense consultations of how to deal with the "Shia problem". Check out this agenda:
On the agenda? Syria and Iran, of course, at least according to Russian sources
. Practically, here are the options which must be decided upon:
1. Military strike on Iran and its inevitable consequences
2. Military intervention in Syria
3. Annexation of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia
The G8 summit will be an excellent opportunity to check out what the Russian position on this three topics will be, in particular since the election of Vladimir Putin. Then, at the NATO summit, NWO leaders will have the opportunity to see who is on-board with these plans and who is not (most will), and finally the Bilderberg Conference will be the perfect setting for the Bilderberg Steering Committee and the interests behind it to take a final decision on these topics. It is also likely that the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA will be discussed and that a post-Obama candidate will be selected to replace Obama.
I suspect that there will be a lot of horse-trading with Russia as the West can easily hand Putin a terrific PR "victory" by giving in on the anti-missile shield in Europe (either by shelving the entire idea - unlikely - or by getting the Russian involved - possible, but still unlikely - or by giving written guarantees to the Russian - which is probably what they will choose). However, to give this to Putin the West will demand his compliance on Syria and even possibly Iran, and I personally very much doubt that this will happen. So my personal guess is that the Russians and the West will put a positive spin on it all, but that they will not agree on anything meaningful.
I also don't see anybody in Europe agreeing to a NATO military intervention in Syria (except the Brits, of course - "poodles" - or the Central European, but they are irrelevant anyway). Not because of any Russian efforts to rescue Assad, but basically because this is a militarily and politically risky operation with no clear exit strategy. So for Syria, "more of the same, only worse" is probably the "best" choice for the West.
As for Iran, paradoxically, it is far more likely that the US will strike at it. Yes, Iran is far bigger and far more powerful than Syria, but the objectives of a strike on Iran will be far more limited. Indeed, I don't believe that anybody seriously has any more hopes for regime change in Iran, so the next best fallback option is to cripple Iran economically and humiliate it politically by doing to it what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006 and to Gaza in 2008. Kill a maximum number of people while crippling the infrastructure. The Israelis, who know full well that there is no Iranian military nuclear program, might even settle for less: a short 24 hour bombing campaign destined at humiliating Iran and at making the Israelis feel good about themselves. Yes, this is naive and dangerous, but then the Israelis are stupid and arrogant.
As for the annexation of Bahrain, the Saudis can probably do it, in particular if the USA fully supports such an operation.
And make no mistake - the the US/Israeli Empire speaks of a "total war on Islam
" they mean *Shia* Islam, not Islam in general, simply because the non-Shia Islamic world has been very effectively co-opted and neutered a long time ago and is a de-facto ally of Zionist interests.
There is no war on Islam, there is only a global war on Shia Islam.
What is your take on that? Any ideas?