my interpretation of Syriana, mid east, CIA hint-dropping part 1....
This is my first thread so I'm going to keep it quite simple and just give a personal opinion on a movie with George Clooney and Matt Damon called
Syriana. Trailer below if I embedded it right...
NOTE: It would be preferable to discuss with those who 1. Like the movie and 2. Have seen the whole thing. The trailers there for a quick recap but if
others wish to comment that's fine but it would be nice if you've actually watched it
Points I will look at with a notation, some may have two notations(*H=Historic event, *R=Recent event, *F=Future event) The future events
are the juiciest because they drop big hints at the plans in place I believe.
US Presidents/CIA supporting specific Saudi families (H)
Captured Westerners covertly held, sometimes murdered and filmed (H)
Re-emergence of Communism and Islamism in the middle east (F)
Competing for control of two major pipelines in the middle east (F)
I can see all of these things hinted, blatantly shown and sometimes only alluded to but they are there. The historic and current events are no big
deal really, I'd agree on that. Although the possible "future" events these depictions in the movie are alluding to got me thinking just how much
the CIA is involved in movies and why they do it. These points are by no means everything the movie shows but I'll explain the scenes that paraphrase
these points to me with my opinion and a link or two Hope its an interesting read and not too boring, I like this stuff
US Presidents/CIA supporting specific Saudis (*H)
Its no secret that the US has maintained a close-knit relationship with the House of Saud for decades now. Since King Abdulaziz unified Saudi Arabia
the Saudi Royal Family has been an influential voice in the Gulf and the middle-east. The discovery of oil and early partnerships with American
companies, especially Chevron (formerly Standard Oil Co.) have made members of the family masses of untold wealth and the country itself a crucial
partner to America.
In Syriana, the two Princes and the incumbent (and frail) ruler are depicted as Prince Nasir Al-Subaai. Prince Meshal Al-Subaai and Emir Hamed
Al-Subaai. These three men are an allegory of King Abdulaziz & his sons Faisal and Saud.
They are both vying for control and want to assume power from their father and they both support different governments whom they prefer to partner
with. Nasir has no problem with Communist Chinese influence in their country but Meshal and the Emir prefer the Americans, the money they give them
and the protection troops on their soil provide. These events are similar to when American forces were kicked out and replaced with Egyptian troops by
Faisal right before the Suez Crisis.
However in the movie the son who did not take power was assassinated (Nasir) because he supported the Chinese. The CIA would be stepping into new
territory if it assassinated a Royal Family member via drone strike but could be hinting as such. It need not be said that whomever favors the
status-quo of the American presence will be backed and protected by the CIA and probably Mossad.
CIA/Mossad assassinating Iranian agents/officials(*R)
George Clooney's CIA character Bob in the movie, is shown in Tehran dealing with a supposed Iranian arms dealer
and they seem to have been quite friendly. Bob sells this man who turns out to be an Iranian agent, a shoulder fired heat
seeking missile. One missile and launcher gets into the hands of an extremist group whilst the other is rigged with an explosive and kills the two
Iranian agents whilst the other slips through and Bob is immediately wary of what is happening.
I think this scene above is a nod to the CIA's support to extremists especially because of the weapon depicted in the video below, same as the
weapons sold in the movie. Old news I know, but they do like to rub it in I think!
That video shows the Stinger missile in action by extremists, supplied to them by the CIA to turn the tables against Soviet forces.
CIA supplying Stingers to extremists
BUT, as we find out later those men killed were Iranian agents which may also be a nod to the covert assassination program taking place against
Iranians involved with the nuclear program which is more recent. Assassination ops against Iran
Captured Westerners covertly held, sometimes murdered and filmed(*H)
This is shown more heavily in "Body of Lies" with Di Caprio but I find Syriana's more interesting...
Be forewarned if squeamish, finger nail pulling! Ouch.
The Iranian double agent who sold out Bob to the Chinese or his own government more than likely... tortures him, goes over Falun Gong torture methods
used by Chinese agents and then is just about to kill him until the religious Hezbollah cleric intervenes and saves Bob.
The cleric is probably that of Hassan Nasrallah
It wouldn't make sense for an Iranian agent to take orders from just any Hezbollah member because of course, Nasrallah gets his instructions from
Damascus and Tehran without a doubt. The extent of Iranian involvement into the filmed murders of Westerners is compelling. Daniel Pearl, Ken Bigley
and countless others were beheaded and filmed in Iraq for propaganda purposes. Al Quaida in Iraq was alleged to be behind most of the executions and
the man purported to be the most prolific executioner of Western captives was Jordanian born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
He allegedly enjoyed directly executing his prisoners and personally killed Daniel Pearl and Ken Bigley. On instructions from Tehran quite possibly.
Pearl was a reporter accused of being an Israeli spy. Iran seems to be a fervent supporter of extremism and I think it factors into Tehran's
asymmetric warfare strategy.
The film shows the Iranian spy Mussawi as the executioner though which I believe they'd rarely partake in. They have many hands willing to do the
There will be no part 2 because upon re reading and spending some further time here that was an aimless rant connecting dots that were not there. Such
was my paranoia when I joined, what a bad start. Thread FAIL!
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.