Global Research

NATOME: Assim, o Presidente Trump, que se orgulha do seu talento para criar siglas, já baptizou o destacamento da NATO no Médio Oriente, por ele solicitado por telefone, ao Secretário Geral da Aliança, Stoltenberg. Este concordou imediatamente, que a NATO deveria ter “um papel cada vez maior no Médio Oriente, particularmente, nas missões de treino”. Ele participou, em seguida, na reunião dos Ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros da UE, salientando que a União Europeia deve permanecer ao lado dos Estados Unidos e da NATO, porque “embora tenhamos feito progressos enormes, o Daesh pode regressar”. Os Estados Unidos procuram, deste modo, envolver os aliados europeus na situação caótica provocada pelo assassínio, autorizado pelo próprio Trump, do General iraniano Soleimani, logo que desembarcou no aeroporto de Bagdad.

Depois do Parlamento iraquiano ter deliberado a expulsão de mais de 5.000 soldados americanos presentes no país, juntamente com milhares de pessoal militar de empresas privadas, contratados pelo Pentágono, o Primeiro Ministro Abdul-Mahdi, pediu ao Departamento do Estado para enviar uma delegação a fim de estabelecer o procedimento da retirada. Os EUA – respondeu o Departamento – irão enviar uma delegação “não para discutir a retirada de tropas, mas o dispositivo adequado de forças  no Médio Oriente”, acrescentando que em Washington se está  a ajustar “o reforço do papel da NATO no Iraque, alinhado com o desejo do Presidente de que os Aliados partilhem o fardo de todos os esforços para a nossa defesa colectiva”.

O plano é claro: substituir, totalmente ou em parte, as tropas USA no Iraque pelas dos aliados europeus, que se encontrariam nas situações mais arriscadas, como demonstra o facto de que a própria NATO, depois do assassínio de Soleimani, suspendeu as missões de treino no Iraque. Além da frente meridional, a NATO está a ser mobilizada na frente oriental. Para “defender a Europa da ameaça russa”, está a preparar-se o exercício Defender Europe 20 que, em Abril e Maio, terá o maior destacamento de forças USA na Europa, dos últimos 25 anos.

Chegarão dos Estados Unidos 20.000 soldados, incluindo vários milhares de militares da Guarda Nacional dos 12 estados USA, que se juntarão aos 9.000 já presentes na Europa, elevando o total para cerca de 30.000 militares. A eles juntar-se-ão 7.000 soldados de 13 países europeus da NATO, entre os quais a Itália e 2 parceiros, a Geórgia e a Finlândia. Além dos armamentos que virão do outro lado do Atlântico, as tropas americanas empregarão 13.000 tanques, canhões auto-propulsores, veículos blindados e outros meios militares dos “depósitos pré-posicionados” dos USA na Europa. Comboios militares com veículos blindados percorrerão 4.000 km por 12 artérias, operando em conjunto com aviões, helicópteros, drones e unidades navais. Páraquedistas USA da 173ª Brigada e italianos da Brigada Folgore serão lançados em conjunto, na Letónia.

O exercício Defender Europe 20 assume maior relevo, na estratégia USA/NATO, após o agravamento da crise no Médio Oriente. O Pentágono que, no ano passado enviou 14.000 soldados para o Médio Oriente, está a desviar na mesma região, algumas forças que se estavam a preparar para os exercícios de guerra na Europa: 4.000 paraquedistas da 82ª Divisão Aerotransportada (incluindo algumas centenas de Vicenza) e 4.500 marinheiros e fuzileiros navais do navio de ataque anfíbio USS Bataan. Outras forças, antes ou depois do exercício na Europa, poderiam ser enviadas para o Médio Oriente. No entanto, o planeamento do Defender Europe 20, observa o Pentágono, permanece inalterado.

Por outras palavras, 30.000 soldados dos EUA exercitar-se-ão a defender a Europa de uma agressão russa, um cenário que nunca poderia verificar-se porque no combate, usar-se-iam não tanques, mas mísseis nucleares. No entanto, é um cenário útil para semear tensões e alimentar a ideia do inimigo.

Manlio Dinucci

NATOME: così il presidente Trump, che si vanta del proprio talento nel creare acronimi, ha già battezzato lo spiegamento della Nato in Medio Oriente, da lui richiesto per telefono al segretario generale dell’Alleanza Stoltenberg. Questi ha immediatamente acconsentito che la Nato debba avere «un accresciuto ruolo in Medio Oriente, in particolare nelle missioni di addestramento». Ha quindi partecipato alla riunione dei ministri degli esteri della Ue, sottolineando che l’Unione europea deve restare a fianco degli Stati uniti e della Nato poiché, «anche se abbiamo fatto enormi progressi, Daesh può ritornare». Gli Stati uniti cercano in tal modo di coinvolgere gli alleati europei nella caotica situazione provocata dall’assassinio, autorizzato dallo stesso Trump, del generale iraniano Soleimani appena sbarcato all’aeroporto di Baghdad. Dopo che il parlamento iracheno ha deliberato l’espulsione degli oltre 5.000 soldati Usa, presenti nel paese insieme a migliaia di contractor del Pentagono, il primo ministro Abdul-Mahdi ha chiesto al Dipartimento di Stato di inviare una delegazione per stabilire la procedura del ritiro. Gli Usa – ha risposto il Dipartimento – invieranno una delegazione «non per discutere il ritiro di truppe, ma l’adeguato dispositivo di forze in Medio Oriente», aggiungendo che a Washington si sta concordando «il rafforzamento del ruolo della Nato in Iraq in linea con il desiderio del Presidente che gli Alleati condividano l’onere in tutti gli sforzi per la nostra difesa collettiva».

Il piano è chiaro: sostituire, totalmente o in parte, le truppe Usa in Iraq con quelle degli alleati europei, che verrebbero a trovarsi nelle situazioni più rischiose, come dimostra il fatto che la stessa Nato, dopo l’assassinio di Soleimani, ha sospeso le missioni di addestramento in Iraq. Oltre che sul fronte meridionale, la Nato viene mobilitata su quello orientale. Per «difendere l’Europa dalla minaccia russa», si sta preparando l’esercitazione Defender Europe 20, che vedrà in aprile e maggio il più grande spiegamento di forze Usa in Europa degli ultimi 25 anni. Arriveranno dagli Stati uniti 20.000 soldati, tra cui alcune migliaia della Guardia Nazionale provenienti da 12 Stati Usa, che si uniranno a 9.000 già presenti in Europa portando il totale a circa 30.000. Essi saranno affiancati da 7.000 soldati di 13 paesi europei della Nato, tra cui l’Italia, e 2 partner, Georgia e Finlandia. Oltre agli armamenti che arriveranno da oltreatlantico, le truppe Usa impiegheranno 13.000 carri armati, cannoni semoventi, blindati e altri mezzi militari provenienti da «depositi preposizionati» Usa in Europa. Convogli militari con mezzi corazzati percorreranno 4.000 km attraverso 12 arterie, operando insieme ad aerei, elicotteri, droni e unità navali. Paracadustisti Usa della 173a Brigata e italiani delle Brigata Folgore si lanceranno insieme in Lettonia.

L’esercitazione Defender Europe 20 assume ulteriore rilievo, nella strategia Usa/Nato, in seguito all’acuirsi della crisi mediorientale. Il Pentagono, che l’anno scorso ha inviato altri 14.000 soldati in Medio Oriente, sta dirottando nella stessa regione alcune forze che si stavano preparando all’esercitazione di guerra in Europa: 4.000 paracadutisti della 82a Divisione aviotrasportata (comprese alcune centinaia da Vicenza) e 4.500 marinai e marines della nave da assalto anfibio USS Bataan. Altre forze, prima o dopo l’esercitazione in Europa, potrebbero essere inviate in Medio Oriente. La pianificazione della Defender Europe 20, precisa il Pentagono, resta però immutata. In altre parole, 30.000 soldati Usa si eserciteranno a difendere l’Europa da una aggressione russa, scenario che mai potrebbe verificarsi anche perché nello scontro si userebbero non carri armati ma missili nucleari. Scenario comunque utile per seminare tensione e alimentare l’idea del nemico.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 14 gennaio 2020

According to Iran’s Judiciary Spokesman Gholamhossein Esmayeeli, the country’s ruling authorities will sue the US in international courts for Soleimani’s assassination.

“This brutal act was a violation of human rights and all international rules,” Esmayeeli stressed, adding:

“Martyr Soleimani was the official guest of the Iraqi government officials as a high-ranking (Iranian) official, and a foreign state has committed this crime in Iraq.”

“The criminal US government’s measure to martyr General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and their entourage is a terrorist act from the legal view of point and a clear instance of state terrorism.”

Iran’s Chief Justice Seyed Ebrahim Raisi said “(t)hose who commit offenses will be prosecuted,” adding:

“We need to name the US president as the main defendant. We won’t let it slide. He must be convicted at the international level.”

The International Criminal Court (ICC), not the ICJ, is the proper tribunal for prosecuting individuals for crimes of war, against humanity, genocide, and aggression.

Since established by the Rome Statute in 2002, the ICC never held the US, other Western nations, or Israel accountable for  indisputable high crimes — just their victims.

Time and again, the court breached its mandate to “end  impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern.”

Clearly it won’t lay a glove on Trump or any other US official involved in Soleimani’s assassination.

Even if it agrees to hear the case, justice will not follow, how it operated since established — prosecuting victims of imperial crimes, not their perpetrators.

Iran will likely seek redress against the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), mandated to settle international legal disputes, along with issuing advisory opinions on international legal issues referred to the court by the UN.

In July 2018, Iran filed suit against the Trump regime in the ICJ for violating provisions of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between both countries.

At the time, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted:

“Iran is committed to the rule of law in the face of US contempt for diplomacy and legal obligations.”

The Trump regime “violated and continues to violate multiple provisions” of the 1955 treaty – along with unlawfully pulling out of the JCPOA, an international treaty, unanimously affirmed by Security Council members, making it binding international law.

In October 2018, the ICJ ruled for Iran, in response its Foreign Ministry said the following:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the decision made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the only major judicial body of the UN and the tribunal’s issuing of an injunction against the US administration’s illegal move to restore unilateral sanctions which came upon the country’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal,” adding:

“(T)he court’s unanimous decision (is a) clear testament to the truthfulness of Iran and the illegitimacy and unfairness of the United States’ sanctions against our country’s people and citizens.”

Though the rulings by the ICJ and ICC are binding, Washington notoriously flouts what conflicts with its interests.

The Trump regime ignored the ICJ’s earlier ruling for Iran, imposing multiple new rounds of sanctions after it was issued.

However the ICJ, ICC, or another international tribunal rules on Soleimani’s assassination, hardwired anti-Iran Trump regime policy won’t change.

Hegemons operate by their own rules, flouting the rule of law with impunity, ignoring judicial rulings against their interests.

Suing the US and Trump in international tribunals is the right thing to do.

The case for Iran is open and shut — even though redress for unlawful US actions in international tribunals is unattainable.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from the American Herald Tribune

Royal gossip is worth its weight in gold on the British media circuit.  Buckingham Palace knows that, and seeks to control, as much as it can, the way that gold is distributed.  

The recent fuss over the premature retirement, or redirection, of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has stirred the hornet’s nest amongst self-harming Royal watchers.  Sky News suggested with profound exaggeration that the announcement that the couple would move to Canada “shocked the UK and the world.”  Disgraceful and unacceptable, went such papers as The Sun.  The Evening Standard ran with the headline, “Harry arrives to face the royal music”, going on to say that he was facing “showdown talks with the Queen, his father Prince Charles and his brother Prince William over his plans to stand down as a senior royal.” 

Harry had effectively resigned from public duties, intent on becoming “financially independent” (such terms are obscene in Palace land) and spending more time in North America.  “We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the royal family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”    

The intention of spending time between the UK and North America will enable the couple to raise their son “with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.” 

Something of a war has broken out between the couple and the press, leading to an information tussle.  The couple have adopted a new communications strategy that involves providing “access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events.”  On the legal front, the duchess has initiated proceedings against the Daily Mail for breach of privacy; the duke sued two papers in October claiming phone hacking.  The National Union of Journalists has expressed concern that the couple’s removal from the “royal rota” of coverage will lead to greater control exercised over coverage of their affairs.

The palace machine has been icy in response to the decision to withdraw, taking a harsh lecturing tone to the couple.  Discussions were, went a statement from the Palace, “at an early stage”.  “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”

The palace stooges are out aplenty, helped along by the Daily Mail’s enthusiastic antipathy against the duchess, never seen as a worthy fit.  The treatment afforded Markle has been strikingly different to that of Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, who is, in the true royal tradition, a functionary and incubator for heirs.  An apt illustration of this can be gathered from the Mail’s respective descriptions of the pregnancies of both Middleton and Markle, the former “tenderly” cradling “her bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave”, the latter incapable of keeping “her hands of her bump”.  Was it “pride, vanity, acting – or a new age bonding technique?” 

Middleton does not question; she adjusts, amends her positions, adapts her being.  When novelist Hilary Mantel made the astute observation that Middleton was really a “show-window mannequin” of machine like quality, “without the risk of the emergence of character”, shrieks and howls followed. This ignored the obvious point that higher aristocracy have always been pieces of strategy and durability rather than people, always the behest of a higher command and duty to procreate.  Real estate, babies and legacies – that’s the show.   

Markle is no such product.  Her US birth, with an African-American mother, and her self-made standing as an actor (leaving aside the quality of that acting), were already awkward jabs at the pattern of royal propriety.  Last June, the sense of independence (the British press prefer the term “divergence”) became evident when the couple decided to go into the charitable pursuit separate from the royal family.  This has led to Markle being subject to what royal historian Marlene Koenig claims is “a pile-on”. 

Markle has been attacked for her luxuriant baby shower last February, dubbed Showergate, accused by Prince Diana’s former private secretary Patrick Jephson for being indiscreet and vulgar.  Despite dealing with it with her own funds, “Favours must be returned, obligations quickly multiply and pretty soon royal free-riders are handing over their most precious assets: credibility and dignity, if not, please God, their lives.” 

Markle has also been said to be a handful for her staff, the Duchess Difficult of the royal set.  The signs of Palace sabotage and disruption are suggested; Markle seems to be rather well-liked, and depending on which royal source you tap, you are bound to find the appropriate slant.

Added to this the less than becoming aspect of the duke’s brother, Prince William, and we are left with a true plate of grist.  One flavoured morsel doing the rounds is the suggestion that the exit of the Sussexes has much to do with the extra-marital conduct of the Duke of Cambridge as with anything else.  The Sun, doing its bit to go through the trash cans, suggests that William is “incandescent with rage” at the suggestion. The Times, not wanting to be left out in the cold, fronts its own royal source alleging that William is prone to bullying and has estranged is brother. 

Enough has been floating around that Wills can barely contain himself and is keeping up the royal front of bed hopping, notably with Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley.  The palace eagles are duly floating around to ensure that no press outlet will publish such speculation without threatened sanction, and royal watchers such as Phil Dampier are already dousing the flames.  “Whatever the truth of William’s closeness to Rose, who is a mum of three, Kate has obviously decided she doesn’t want any lasting bitterness or tension.” 

For republicans, none of the above should matter, except that the royals remain some of the most privileged spongers of Britain and the Commonwealth.  Their extra-marital trysts are subsidised; their efforts to be celebrity puffs are also greased by the tax payer.  In Canada, the security tab will be picked up by local security.  Though the Sussexes have made it clear they do not intend to rely on the British public purse, the question remains unresolved.  What remains striking, however, is the way the palace machinery has strutted its plumage, giving the impression that the Sussex situation was a scandal unique and deserving of attention.

In the end, it was left to the Queen to exert some authority via a statement.  “My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family.  Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”  In what must count as a polished way of saying “bugger”, the Queen promises “a period of transition which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

The lobbyist is part of CAA, one of the most active right-wing Zionist groups promoting the false notion that Britain’s Labour Party became an anti-Semitic party after Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership in 2015.

***

A prominent Israel lobbyist in the UK has claimed credit for last month’s electoral defeat of the British Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.

“The beast is slain,” Joe Glasman delighted – Corbyn has been “slaughtered.”

He rejoiced that “we defeated him” in the election. “They tried to kill us,” he ranted, but “we won.”

Glasman leads the “political investigations team” at the Campaign Against Antisemitism, or CAA – an influential anti-Palestinian lobby group.

He made his comments in a bizarre video rant addressed to his team of supporters that he posted online during the holiday break.

The video was soon set to private.

But left-wing Labour activists managed to download a copy and posted it on the Barnet Momentum Facebook page.

In the video Glasman claimed he and his supporters beat Corbyn through a coordinated campaign using methods including “our spies and intel.”

But he said his group were “not secret Mossad spies, they’re just ordinary people.”

The video swiftly became an embarrassment. Other copies posted online have been taken down following copyright claims by Glasman.

The Electronic Intifada is reposting the full video to YouTube channel for news reporting purposes.

Partisan “charity”

After he was subjected to a four-year witch hunt targeting the left and Palestine solidarity activists over alleged “Labour anti-Semitism,” Corbyn lost last month’s general election.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism was founded in 2014 during Israel’s war against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip, to counter rising criticism of Israel. It did so primarily by smearing critics as anti-Semitic.

It has been one of the most active right-wing Zionist groups promoting the false notion that Labour became an anti-Semitic party after Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership in 2015.

But as anti-Zionist Palestine solidarity campaigner Tony Greenstein recently put it, “The one thing that the Campaign Against Antisemitism doesn’t do is to campaign against anti-Semitism.”

In fact, Greenstein argued on his blog, “anti-Semitism of the traditional kind is all but ignored by it, but [fake] ‘anti-Semitism’ of the anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian variety is very much its concern.”

Despite being a registered charity, and thus supposedly non-partisan, the CAA openly campaigned against Labour and against Corbyn.

It organised demonstrations against Labour, including one day before last month’s general election. Greenstein has complained to the Charity Commission, calling for the regulator to remove the group’s tax-exempt status.

Anti-Palestinian agenda

The Campaign Against Antisemitism habitually smears Palestinians and their supporters.

In 2017, it attacked Malaka Shwaikh, a Palestinian from Gaza then running in student elections in Exeter. The attacks sparked a barrage of threats and harassment against her.

Now a lecturer at the University of Leeds, Shwaikh told The Electronic Intifada at the time, “The right of free speech on campus has been threatened.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Il sito militare russo Avia.pro ha affrontato il problema dell’incidente a causa di un errore umano del Boing ucraino 737 in Iran, l’8 gennaio, pochi minuti dopo il decollo, che ha causato la morte di 179 passeggeri e membri dell’equipaggio.

Facendo affidamento su esperti militari, riferisce che l’incidente assomiglia punto per punto alla distruzione a Latakia, in Siria, nel settembre 2018, di un IL-20 russo. I combattenti israeliani, seguiti dai missili siriani, hanno usato l’aereo come scudo, anche se ciò significava la sua distruzione e la morte di 15 passeggeri.

Il sito web militare russo fa riferimento a un’indagine indipendente che ha concluso “almeno una parziale responsabilità degli Stati Uniti” nella tragedia dell’8 gennaio:

“Secondo gli esperti, l’esercito americano ha deliberatamente modificato le informazioni sul volo del Boeing ucraino 737, rendendolo un vero bersaglio per i sistemi di difesa aerea iraniani”. Secondo i dati provenienti da fonti relative al Pentagono, diversi aerei militari statunitensi sono stati osservati nel cielo vicino allo spazio aereo iraniano, proprio al momento del volo Boeing, e sono state osservate anomalie nei radar iraniani, probabilmente a causa di un attacco informatico. L’aereo civile fu quindi confuso con un aereo da caccia diretto direttamente verso un obiettivo militare. ”

“Da quando il pilota ha fatto un’inversione a U, è molto probabile che l’attacco informatico statunitense abbia anche puntato sul sistema di navigazione del Boeing ucraino. Questa non è la prima volta che gli americani fanno questo tipo di azione “, ha detto il sito.

Inoltre, un membro del Comitato di sicurezza e difesa della Duma russa ha accusato le provocatorie misure statunitensi contro l’Iran di essere state la causa dell’incidente aereo ucraino.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is currently presenting the work of Félix Vallotton, an artist who has been largely neglected relative to his contemporaries, such as Pierre Bonnard and Édouard Vuillard. This makes the present exhibition all the more welcome, and fascinating. Vallotton’s work unquestionably merits the renewed attention — his paintings possess a mysterious quality, narrative appeal, and attention to detail, as well as invoke a delicious sense of irony and wit.

Born in the Swiss town of Lausanne on the shores of Lake Geneva in 1865, Vallotton displayed early an ability to draw from life; and at sixteen he arrived in Paris to study painting at the Académie Julian. A self-portrait at the age of twenty reveals a virtuosic, confident brush and much more — Vallotton is not interested in merely demonstrating his facility as a realist painter: he has a penetrating eye, a psychological depth, and a naturalism that owes much to northern Renaissance masters, especially Albrecht Dürer and Hans Holbein.

It is not entirely clear when Vallotton’s friendship with Les Nabis began – from the Hebrew word for prophet, the Nabis were an avant-garde group of Parisian artists, which included Bonnard, Vuillard, Charles Cottet, and Ker-Xavier Roussel, among others. Valloton’s nickname within the group may be revealing – he was the ‘foreigner Nabi’. Perhaps this name reflected his Swiss origin, but the Nabis were an international group anyhow. It could also reflect in some measure that Vallotton was something of a loner; but it may allude to the fact that while for a time he adopted the Nabi’s dismissal of naturalism in favor of flat forms and the expressivist use of color, Vallotton was and fundamentally remained a realist painter.

Recognition arrived early in Vallotton’s career for reviving the art of woodcut prints which had largely been forgotten since the Renaissance. Indeed, by the age of 25, Vallotton had single-handedly brought about a kind of revolution in xylography. Inspired by Japanese woodcuts that were popular in Paris at the time, Vallotton produced images with sharp contrasts of jet black and pristine white. His woodcuts are remarkable for their commentary on the French bourgeoisie, their stinging rebuke of societal decadence in fin-de-siècle Paris, their critical orientation to the police. Vallotton has an eye for violence — be it in the form of murder, or the sudden carriage accident, the political execution or the suicide. Vallotton combines a dark realism with sophisticated satire, wry humor, and a keen acerbic wit. He has an eye for the ambiguous and the enigmatic — a deft and subtle touch that defies finalization. The Demonstration from 1893 renders the political chaos of the day with humor — from the old man who has lost hold of his hat to the sole figure in white, a woman racing along the left hand side.

L’Eclat (recto), L’Exécution (verso) 1894–97

Vallotton would return in both woodcuts and paintings to the scene of the bourgeoisie shopping for the latest luxury goods at the Bon Marche Department Store — the first such store of its kind in the world. The 1898 triptych is not without a certain irony — given that the format Vallotton chose was traditionally associated with altarpieces such as would be found in church. Which is just to underscore the Vallotton is a close observer of modernity, fascinated by the new world he sees emerging around him — with its rampant consumerism, and its technological novelties (such as a moving conveyor belt along a footbridge, which he includes in his woodcut series devoted to the World’s Fair of 1900.)

A series of ten woodcuts entitled Intimités is a sustained and biting critique, and among Vallotton’s greatest achievements as a graphic artist. As an unsettling and disquieting series which lays bare the hypocrisies of bourgeois society, Vallotton deftly exposes a decadent class through scenes of adultery, deceit, romantic quarrels and indecent proposals.

In 1899, Vallotton married Gabrielle Rodrigues-Henriques and the union was to have a significant effect on the remainder of his career. His wife was a wealthy widow and the daughter of a Paris art merchant, which meant that he now enjoyed a certain financial security and could turn exclusively to painting. While Vallotton’s work generally lost its satirical wit and subversive edge — there is also a certain psychological insight and marked turn towards the inwardness of his subjects that constitutes much of the power of this later period.

The acquisition of a Kodak camera in 1899 led to changes in the way the artist worked. Now, he would typically take snapshots of imagery that appealed to him – and then used those photographs to craft his painting in the studio. It appears that often he would retain the sharply contrasting patterns of light and shadow revealed in the small photograph. However, the painter however was by no means subservient to the photographic image, as The Red Room, Etretat (1899), demonstrates. It is a remarkable painting for its unity of composition and psychological structure. All lines in the painting essentially point to (and up to) the seated figure of Gabrielle Vallotton – even the viewer is made to feel they’re looking up to this woman, who meanwhile looks down at the small child in the foreground. This child, so crucial to the psychological depth of the painting is entirely absent, however, from the photograph.

Vallotton was also a master of ambiguity. There is always something more to the story he is telling that must ever remain just beyond our reach. Consider, for example, one of this exhibition’s finest offerings, The White and the Black (1913), a provocative work depicting a young white woman, nude and reclining; and a black woman, seated and coolly smoking a cigarette. The painting may be a response to Édouard Manet’s Olympia (1863) in which a white model, a prostitute likely, lies on a bed attended by a black servant bringing her flowers (probably from a client). But Vallotton may also be in dialogue with Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’ Grande Odalisque (1814) and Odalisque with a Slave (1839). All of his friend’s attest to Vallotton’s love and admiration for Ingres, by whom he was “conquered without offering any resistance” – as one contemporary put it. Vallotton was clearly a close observer of Manet as well, and many of his paintings – for example, Misia at Her Dressing Table (1898) – emphasize the harsh light, the large color surfaces and shallow depth that was characteristic of Manet’s work, including Olympia (1863). But at the same time Vallotton subverts the traditional roles of mistress and servant by making the relationship between these two women utterly ambiguous.

The White and the Black (La Blanche et la Noire) 1913

The Provincial (1909) is notable for its exploration of one of Vallotton’s recurring themes – namely, the complex, uneven relationship between men and women. In this painting, and others such as Chaste Suzanne (1922), a powerful female figure holds sway over her subservient male counterpart. The white lace of her blouse protrudes in a witty but subtle reminder of her breasts, which only underscores her sexual dominance over the docile man who sits beside her with eyes deferentially lowered.

Moonlight (1895) is a standout work that reveals the influence of the Symbolists, in Vallotton’s attention to emotional force over actual topographical representation – water, earth and sky have become interfused in what is almost an abstraction. The picture also anticipates the latter part of his career, when Vallotton increasingly turned to landscape painting – often beginning with a photographic image or an on-site sketch, which was then imaginatively reconstructed on the canvas. The painter referred to his later landscapes as paysages composes (composed landscapes) – and remarked in 1906, “I dream of a painting free from any literal respect for nature.” Valloton said he wanted to “be able to recreate landscapes only with the help of the emotion they have provoked in me.” His method allows him to simplify the compositional structure, to intensify the mood and emphasize the emotional impact of color – as, for example, in Last Rays (1911) where we find the silhouettes of umbrella pines as they receive the last light of the evening sun.

Félix Vallotton more than deserves the attention that this exhibition brings. His work – from the groundbreaking forays into xylography, to his portraits and scenes of bourgeois society, to his hauntingly mesmerizing landscapes – defies identification with any artistic school. Like all truly great artists, Vallotton is inimitable; while he experiments with various artistic programs, he ultimately remains aloof from them, determined to paint pictures purged of all sentimentality, beholden only to the emotional, psychological or social reality with which he is concerned. Such a body of work remains ever fresh and vital, and rewards close attention with a glimpse of truth.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from The MET

Brexit has now cost the UK £130bn in what is termed as “collateral damage” since the referendum, a new study suggests. And this number is set to rise another £70bn by the end of 2020.

Bloomberg Economics said Britain’s economy had been “lacklustre” over the three-and-a-half years since a majority of voters backed Leave in the EU referendum in 2016.

Its analysis shows British companies performed poorly, even accounting for the weaker global economy by international standards

It predicted Brexit would continue to hold back national output, forecasting a further £70bn hit in lost opportunities for growth this year.

“Even the boost BE expects from prime minister Boris Johnson’s decisive election victory in December won’t stop a further £70bn being added this year,” wrote its chief UK economist and former Treasury official Dan Hanson.

The Conservatives’ landslide victory in December broke the long-running political deadlock at Westminster, paving the way for Britain’s departure on 31 January.

But while Johnson’s Brexit withdrawal bill attempts to tackle key issues linked to Britain’s departure, official talks over the future of EU-UK trade and wider relations have not even begun. Although the British government have stated that the EU deal will be done by 31st December 2020, EU officials do not agree stating that it could take years.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, warned in a speech on Thursday of the risk “uncertainties over future trading relationships could remain entrenched.”

He said such uncertainty had already proved a “persistent drag” already on the UK economy, slowing growth below its potential, particularly through reduced business investment. Inward investment into Britain has all but collapsed since 2016.

Carney, who leaves his role in March, said growth had “significantly underperformed” the central bank’s predictions prior to the referendum.

He said GDP was 3% lower than might have been expected if Britain had voted to stay, taking into account how the rest of the world’s economies had performed since June 2016.

Uncertainty has dented business investment and innovation, hitting firms’ capacity to grow, according to Carney.

Many firms and investors fear Brexit will mean new barriers to trade with EU partners. Contingency planning has also drained firms of “considerable time and resources,” Carney said.

Investment has significantly fallen in four of the past seven quarters, with growth more than 20% less than forecast by the bank before the referendum in May 2016. Household spending has also fallen in the past year adding to economic woes.

He added: “Brexit-related uncertainties may have dissuaded companies from expanding supply capacity or entering new markets.”

But the survey of business leaders, conducted by accountancy giant Deloitte, saw 38% say they planned to increase investment in 2020. That marked the highest proportion in four years, while Brexit also dropped from the top to third on a list of their greatest concerns.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author

President Trump’s decision earlier this month to assassinate Iran’s top military general on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraqi government – has damaged the US relationship with its “ally” Iraq and set the region on the brink of war. Iran’s measured response – a few missiles fired on an Iraqi base after advance warning was given – is the only reason the US is not mired in another Middle East war.

Trump said his decision to assassinate Gen. Qassim Soleimani was intended to prevent a war, not start a war. But no one in his right mind would think that killing another country’s top military leader would not leave that country annoyed, to say the least. Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) said the Trump Administration’s briefing to Congress on its evidence to back up claims that Soleimani was about to launch attacks against the US was among the worst briefings they’d ever attended.

After initially claiming that Soleimani had to be taken out immediately because of “imminent” attacks he was launching against the US, Trump Administration officials including Secretary of State Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper have been busy walking back those claims. Esper claimed over the weekend that he had not seen the intelligence suggesting an attack on US embassies was in the works. If the Secretary of Defense did not seen the intelligence, then who did?

No doubt the Iraqi leadership recognized these kinds of deceptions: the same kinds of lies were used to push the US into attacking their own country in 2003. So it should not have come as a big surprise that the Iraqi government met last week and voted that all foreign military personnel should leave Iraqi soil.

Then a funny thing happened when the Iraqi prime minister attempted to communicate to the US government the will of the Iraqi people through their democratically-elected officials. On Thursday Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi phoned Pompeo to urgently request that Washington enact a US troop “withdrawal mechanism” in Iraq. American troops are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi government had just voted to revoke that invitation.

The State Department responded with a statement titled “The US Continued Partnership with Iraq,” in which it essentially said that the US would not abide by the request of its Iraqi partners because the US military is a “force for good” in the Middle East and that as such it is “our right” to maintain “appropriate force posture” in the region.

The US invaded Iraq based on Bush Administration lies and a million Iraqis died as a result. Later, President Obama ramped up the drone program and also backed al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists to overthrow the secular Syrian government. Obama also attacked Libya based on lies, leaving the country totally destroyed. Trump is assassinating foreign officials and threatening destruction of Iran.

And the State Department calls that a “force for good”?

The United States can be a true force for good, however. End the military occupation of the Middle East, end foreign military aid, stop using the CIA to overthrow governments. Allow Americans to travel and do business in any country they wish. Lead by example and demonstrate how free markets and peace benefit all. A “force for good” means not forcing others to bow to your will.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

If one seriously seeks to understand how delusional policymakers in Washington are it is only necessary to examine the responses by the president and Congress to the assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani. The first response came in the form of a Donald Trump largely incoherent nine-minute self-applauding speech explaining what he had done and why. It was followed by a House of Representatives War Powers non-binding resolution that was all theater and did nothing to limit the president’s unilateral ability to go to war with the Islamic Republic.

It was reported that the Trump speech had been hurriedly written by aides the night before it was given and that it existed in several competing drafts. It was full of out-and-out lies and half truths and intended to reassure the American people that the president was keeping them safe. The opening line might well be regarded as some kind of joke: “As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Trump has in fact done more to ensure that Iran will have a nuclear weapon than any other president through his abrupt withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) and his assassination of Soleimani, which together have convinced the Iranian leadership that there is no possibility of a reasonable negotiated solution when dealing with the American president, even when he claims he wants to “talk.”

Trump then went on characteristically to eulogize our brave soldiers on far flung battlefields before lying again, saying “For far too long — all the way back to 1979, to be exact — nations have tolerated Iran’s destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and beyond. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen.” Lie one is that the “destructive and destabilizing behavior” actually has Made in U.S.A. stamped all over it. Lie two is “leading sponsor of terrorism,” an honor that belongs to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, in that order. And lie three is that Iran “pursued” nuclear weapons. It has never done so.

Trump them boasted that “Last week, we took decisive action to stop a ruthless terrorist from threatening American lives. At my direction, the United States military eliminated the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani. As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was personally responsible for some of the absolutely worst atrocities.” Trump’s preening was again wrong on every count: Soleimani is no terrorist by any reasonable definition, nor is there any evidence that he threatened American lives. And Trump and his chorus of neocons cannot name a single “atrocity” committed by the man

The president claimed that Soleimani “…viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims,” a particularly absurd charge suggesting that Trump believes that any American soldier who died in Iraq or Afghanistan did so at the hands of the Iranian Major General. By the same logic, the musical chairs series of American generals that have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have murdered hundreds of thousands of people. If Trump wants to start counting fatalities he should perhaps start with David Petraeus.

Piling Ossa on Pelion, Trump declared that Soleimani “…orchestrated the violent assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets, but we stopped him.” There is no evidence whatsoever to support either assertion and Trump then goes on to ascribe all the problems of the Middle East to Iran, ignoring the roles played by others, most notably Washington, Israel and the Saudis. He also roundly condemned the JCPOA before asserting falsely that “Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi…” In reality, ISIS was defeated by the Syrian Army and its allies Russia and Iran, the very countries that Trump has continued to vilify even as he struts his anti-terrorist credentials. Qassem Soleimani played a major role in the destruction of ISIS.

The only good things in the Trump speech were that it was short and the president did not find it necessary to say a whole lot of good things about Israel. Interestingly, no one in the mainstream media or in the political chattering class made much effort to challenged Trump on the “facts” he cited, though there was some pushback from mostly Democratic congressmen who stated that they could not see any “imminent threat” in the evidence that the Administration produced during a classified briefing. The actual war powers concurrent resolution that passed in the House last Thursday was symptomatic of the unwillingness of the political opposition to take on the illegal and immoral wars in the Middle East themselves – it had no teeth and will not change anything.

The resolution’s subject line “Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran” actually is misleading. And the first thing the text does do is slam Iran with the same dubious “facts” employed by Trump, including that “The Government of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism and engages in a range of destabilizing activities across the Middle East. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was the lead architect of much of Iran’s destabilizing activities throughout the world.”

The resolution includes “In matters of imminent armed attacks, the executive branch should indicate to Congress why military action was necessary within a certain window of opportunity, the possible harm that missing the window would cause, and why the action was likely to prevent future disastrous attacks against the United States.” It then goes on to explain that “When the United States uses military force, the American people and members of the United States Armed Forces deserve a credible explanation regarding such use of military force…” because “The War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) requires the President to consult with Congress ‘in every possible instance’ before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.” It concludes with “Congress has not authorized the President to use military force against Iran.”

It would seem to be a devastating critique of the Trump Art of War but then comes the wiggle room “…Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military, unless Congress has declared war or enacted specific statutory authorization for such use of the Armed Forces; or such use of the Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces, consistent with the requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent the President from using military force against al Qaeda or associated forces…” In other words, all Trump has to do is claim “imminent threat” or that he is attacking “terrorist associated forces” and he is home free no matter what he does, particularly as the resolution itself is non-binding.

The sheer ignorance and arrogance of elites in Washington combined with a colonialist mentality that dismisses Asians and Africans as unthinking “wogs” who will do one’s bidding if they are confronted with punishment is currently on display. It was inevitable that Iraq would demand the departure of U.S. troops after thirty-four Iraqi militiamen were killed by American drone and air strikes, but many in Washington just didn’t get it. Trump threatened, in characteristic fashion, to respond with sanctions, but now Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has made it official in a phone call to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, demanding a plan and timetable for the removal of the American soldiers. The State Department has indicated that it is not prepared to discuss the matter.

Some pundits who should know better have predicted that the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers will not take place because Iraq somehow “needs” the United States. And besides, there will be economic consequences if Iraq does go ahead to insist on an American withdrawal. But sometimes abstractions prove to be more powerful than material incentives. The United States violated Iraqi sovereignty not once but twice and murdered 34 Iraqis in the process. Pompeo can huff and puff all he wants and Trump can mouth his illiteracies, but nothing changes the fact that the United States did things it did not have to do based on a delusional view of the Middle East and will have to pay a price. Minus a presence in Iraq, Syria will be untenable and one might hope that once the U.S. loses its ability to directly confront Iran on the ground the whole house of cards just might collapse, leading to Washington’s gradual departure from the region. That would be good for the region and also for the United States even if Israel and the Saudis, who prefer to have Americans fight and die in their wars, might object.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from Syria News

Once again the French have shown the world now to protest, and that protesting works. President Emmanuel Macron was forced to roll back his plans for pensions reform over the weekend as demonstrators took to the streets on Saturday in what was entering a second month of social unrest. Paris had come to a standstill over the festive season; trains, including the metro had ground to a halt, save a couple of main lines during peak times, as commuters and shoppers stayed at home.

It has been agreed to scrap for the time being, a plan to raise the full-benefits retirement age from 62 to 64. France currently has a pensions deficit of around $19 billion, and although Macron’s proposals would have gone some way to fixing it, the President is going to have to rethink his approach. The idea is to wait until at least April, by which a report into the pensions deficit should be ready.

Macron has seen unprecedented protests during his tenure so far. Indeed this latest one is the longest in modern French history. Although it has been given minimal coverage in the corporate media, Yellow Vest demonstrations for economic and social justice have been a weekly feature of the Macron presidency since as far back as October 2018. But this hasn’t stopped ‘Manu’ -as some call him – from trying to implement a range of reforms which workers feel undermine their rights. Forced to abandon his fuel tax rise back in 2018 as a result of protests, he then embarked on a series of other reforms, the latest of which has been to pensions. And despite being reported in mainstream media as being merely a retirement age increase from 62 to 64 for certain professions, what Macron proposed was not quite as harmless as is being portrayed.

Referred to by France’s CGT union as a ‘smokescreen’, the pension reforms were to replace France’s 42 separate pension regimes with a points system. But opponents say by doing that, people would be required to work for longer or be left with less money when they retire.  It would also abolish benefits like early retirement for certain groups of workers. And far from women being ‘big winners’ from the reforms as the government maintains, it seems the opposite could be true, with widows, divorced women and mothers who take career breaks to raise their families, being particularly penalised. As a result, the majority of French support the strikes – around 62% according to an RTL poll.

One might think that Macron would have learnt some lessons from his predecessors. Alain Juppe, Prime Minister under Jacques Chirac, tried to overhaul pensions in 1995, leading to three weeks of strikes which equally resulted in a government U-turn. But Macron has had a ruthless, defiant approach towards the protestors since the outset; determined not to give in to their demands. Even before he became President, he proclaimed in response to a question about pushing through economic reforms ‘if we get a few protests, it won’t be a show-stopper’. And this attitude is what is at the heart of the demonstrations against the government. For it is Macron’s lofty, high-handed approach which has irked people from the very beginning.

The idea that people’s feelings towards the reforms are somehow irrelevant – the very people who are powering the machine that is the city of Paris – is gravely wrong, and will only inspire more French to take to the streets. These people are no different from those who led the revolution of the 18th century, and it would be a mistake to think that they will accept to be dictated to by a powerful elite any more than their ancestors did.  The mood in the streets has been militant of late; emotions are running high.

The French people have proved that they are a force to be reckoned with. It is to Emmanuel Macron’s detriment if he underestimates them. Currently he is presiding over one of the most socially turbulent periods in France’s modern history. If he is to save his legacy at all, he must begin by respecting the citizens he presides over, and ultimately, by respecting the key message of the republic: freedom, equality and fraternity.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

New reporting out Monday further erodes the White House narrative that President Donald Trump was justified in ordering the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani earlier this month because Soleimani posed an “imminent” threat to American targets. 

According to NBC News, Trump authorized Soleimani’s killing in June—seven months ago—on the condition that Iranian actions resulted in the death of an American. The assassination was pushed by Iran war hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, who wanted the U.S. to carry out the killing in retaliation for Iran shooting down a US. drone in June. Trump responded to the push by responding “that’s only on the table if they hit Americans,” according to a person briefed on the discussion.

Discussions on targeting Soleimani began even earlier. From NBC:

The idea of killing Soleimani came up in discussions in 2017 that Trump’s national security adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, was having with other administration officials about the president’s broader national security strategy, officials said. But it was just one of a host of possible elements of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran and “was not something that was thought of as a first move,” said a former senior administration official involved in the discussions.

Middle East analyst Juan Cole added to the mounting scrutiny over Trump’s “imminent” threat narrative on Monday. Writing at his Informed Comment blog, Cole noted:

[Soleimani] does not appear to have killed or had killed any Americans at all in the past decade, and from 2015 because of the U.N. Security Council nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was not an adversary of the US in recent years. In fact, he was often a de facto ally and the U.S. Air Force gave him air support at Tikrit and elsewhere in the campaign against ISIL (ISIS, Daesh). In fact, for a while there Soleimani was fighting ISIL and al-Qaeda-linked militias in Syria in tacit alliance with the Kurds supported by the United States at a time when Israel allied with an al-Qaeda affiliate in the Golan Heights.

Moreover, the entire narrative of the Trump administration was undermined by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdelmahdi, who told Parliament on Jan. 5when he asked its members to kick out the U.S. military, that he had personally invited Soleimani to Baghdad as part of a back-channel set of negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran aimed at cooling down tensions between the two. Soleimani did not sneak into Iraq on a covert mission. He flew on a commercial jet and went through passport control with his diplomatic passport.

While an attempt was made to invade the U.S. embassy on the Wednesday before Soleimani’s arrival, that was done by members of the Iraqi militia, the Kata’ib Hizbullah, who were angry that on December 30, the Trump administration bombed its bases in northern Iraq and killed some two dozen of its fighters.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have also found evidence presented to them by administration officials to be unconvincing.

Among that group is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.),  who pointed to Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s comments to CBS Sunday that he “didn’t see” any specific evidence about four U.S. embassies being targeted by Soleimani.

Speaking on MSNBC‘s Kasie DC show Sunday, Merkley said, “the whole imminent argument is basically made up and they’re trying to backfill and give that some substance.”

“But it wasn’t there,” Merkley said. “It wasn’t in the [Senate] brieifing. It wasn’t detailed… and there’s Secretary Esper trying to square the circle and having a hard time doing it.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also contributed to the doubt over the administration’s stated justification, telling Fox News last week that the administration actually didn’t know when or where the purported “imminent” attacks were going to take place.

Soleimani’s killing has sparked Agnes Callamard, United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, to call this month for an impartial probe.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Russia’s Libyan peace summit in Moscow didn’t succeed with its stated objective of getting the warring parties to agree to a ceasefire agreement after they failed to find any common ground with one another, but it was nevertheless a good start which showed just how influential the trans-regional Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership has become, especially since it paved the way for this weekend’s upcoming peace talks in Berlin.

This article first published on November 13th 2020 points to a potential “conflict of interest” of Britain’s Prime Minister who meets up with Bill Gates and the representatives of Big Pharma.

Is Boris serving the interests of the British people? Or is he acting on behalf of the pharmaceutical conglomerates?

“We’re fortunate that Prime Minister Johnson has come up with a smart plan”, says Bill Gates. 

GR Editor, M. Ch.

***

The British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, currently being criticised for imposing another lockdown based on questionable data, has met with Bill Gates to discuss implementing a global “health security” program using Britain’s G7 presidency to speed up the process.

Johnson met with Gates along with the CEOs of ten of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies to foment plans to roll out the vaccine for coronavirus.

Every CEO agreed to commit to providing “fair” access across the globe to the vaccine when it is ready.

Johnson said that the opportunity the G7 presidency in 2021 affords Britain will allow the nation to spearhead a global health plan developed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in partnership with the Wellcome Trust.

The plan was unveiled by Gates at the UN in September, where he called for  overhauling big pharma’s capacity to manufacture “vaccines and treatments.”

Johnson hailed the effort as a “new era of collaboration for problem solving,” and “pandemic preparedness,” adding that it will be a “truly global endeavor”.

The Prime Minister said that world leaders should have heeded Gates’ warnings years ago, and must now work with his Foundation to prevent “something like [Covid-19] ever happening again.”

Gates noted that “the world needs a comprehensive strategy; a coherent approach to financing and manufacturing billions of doses of vaccines, tests and drugs; and a network to monitor for new threats.”

“We’re fortunate that Prime Minister Johnson has come up with a smart plan to do just that in the UK, and our foundation will continue to work with his government and others to make it a reality,” Gates added.

The British government is preparing to roll out the coronavirus vaccine on a level never before seen, drafting in the army to man vaccination centres at arenas, sports halls, and shopping malls.

It has been described as “the biggest logistical effort since the Second World War.”

Gates has previously declared that the world won’t return to normal until “a lot of people” take a second “super-effective” coronavirus vaccine that could be years away.

Last week, we Gates has forcast that a “best case scenario” for a return to normal would be the end of 2021, a date that was qualified with the proviso, “We still don’t know whether these vaccines will succeed.”

The billionaire has also suggested that governments need to ‘brainstorm’ ways of “reducing vaccine hesitancy,” in the face of anti-vaccine “conspiracy theories”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The assassination of Major General Qaseem Soleimani, who was already a national hero in Iran, has now achieved the stature of a world class martyr. Carrying a diplomatic passport on his flight into Baghdad, Soleimani was also carrying the Iranian response  to a Saudi initiative for peace.

In contrast, President Donald Trump has revealed more about his own inner angst than he ever intended – or perhaps, being a non-introspective type, what has been revealed may be more than he himself has ever acknowledged.

As events and more of the back story unfold, Trump’s frequently problematic sense of reality may be questioned in view of his astonishing suggestion that he is ‘ready to makea new nuclear deal with Iran, even as he ordered additional sanction against the country.  Prior to Soleimani’s assassination, Trump threatened to kill Iraq Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi.

There is no denying that the nature of the act is right out of the Israel play book of quick and dirty overkill and extermination of humanity as seen in Gaza and Jerusalem on a daily basis.

During a session of the Iraq legislature immediately after the assassination, Mahdi reported that the Americans had “ruined his country” and were now unwilling to repair Iraq’s electric grid and other infrastructure needs. Mahdi did what any self respecting leader would do; he signed a contract with Trump’s favorite trading partner to make the repairs.   China already had an international reputation for providing necessary community infrastructure in Africa and elsewhere – wonder if they might visit Detroit and solve their water quality crisis.

Trump has vehemently opposed Iraq’s deal with China unless Mahdi would guarantee that 50% of Iraq’s oil revenue would go to the US.  Mahdi refused and when he refused to reject the contract, he said that Trump “threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.”

Mahdi continued

“Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine sniperson tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.  I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.”

Mahdi says he was also “threatened with false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation” like what took place  in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and the Maidan in 2014.

“After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this “third party”.

Does any precedent exist, outside of a formally declared war, where the leader of one country personally threatens the life of the leader of another country? This sounds more serious than just a “bad hair” day but rather that someone was off their meds. As Trump frequently demonstrates a bombastic nature with a non-functioning filter to refine his every whim and thought, he has more recently exhibited a deep dark side that has emerged for many Americans to witness.

The nature of the Act itself, the sheer violence of obliterating another human being beyond recognition, appeared to not be enough to satisfy the President’s inner lustful rage.  He continued over the weekend to issue a score of irrational threats to Iran and unfounded accusations about Soleimani who is now acknowledged as architect of the successful campaign to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  Despite the false bravado, Trump’s media blast was less a show of strength and courage than a horrifying display of one soul’s malevolent nature.

Forty two hours after the assassination, Trump appeared before the VFW’s National Conference where, in a massive disconnect from reality, he suggested:  “I withdrew the US from a horrible one sided nuclear deal and Iran is not the same country any more; that I can say.  We’ll see what happens but we’re ready to make a real deal; not a deal that was done by the previous administration which was a disaster.“ Is it rational to consider a new nuclear deal with Iran after having just assassinated that country’s most revered military leader?

By Wednesday, in an awkward and somewhat bumbling public appearance from  the White House, Trump appeared short of breath and nervous as he spoke the same belligerent rhetoric but in a more mellow tone.   He again raised the possibility of a new nuclear deal with Iran:  “We must all work together to make a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place” and “The US is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it” as if the assassination was a long ago forgotten kerfuffle.

As Trump continued to pound on Soleimani in death about destabilizing the Middle East, every word he uttered about terrorists could be easily applied to the US, to himself or to Barack Obama or GW for their never-ending campaign to preserve The Empire.

With a penchant for over-exaggeration, Trump claims that the “US has achieved energy independence” as if it is a done deal.   “We are now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world.  We are independent and  “we do not need Middle East oil.” So let’s take him at his word that the US has truly achieved  long term reliable energy  independence; then let’s immediately initiate an exit strategy from Afghanistan, Iraq,  Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and where ever else US troops are protecting pipelines.

The Iranians are long term, big picture thinkers and they might see the wisdom of going through the motions of a new deal with the US but the smart money is on a covert act  that will claim a fitting justice for Soleimani as it is time for Israel to fight its own battles.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.   She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC.  She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31.

Featured image is from South Front

In response to the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU head Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Iraq’s prime minister and parliament called for expelling US troops from the country.

They’re a hostile force wherever based, their presence making peace and stability unattainable.

Iraqis want them out of their country. Trump and hardliners surrounding him refuse to go, the country now occupied US territory.

Their presence is all about colonizing Iraq, permanently occupying its territory, controlling its hydrocarbon and other resources, along with using its military bases in the country as platforms for endless regional wars against invented enemies.

As president and commander-in-chief of US armed forces, Trump serves the interests of America’s military, industrial, security complex, Wall Street, Big Oil, and other corporate interests — at the expense of world peace, equity, justice, the rule of law, and other democratic values he and most others in Washington disdain.

Last week, Trump threatened tough sanctions on Iraq if US troops are expelled, saying:

“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” adding:

He’ll impose “sanctions (on Iraq) like they’ve never seen before ever.”

According to former Iraqi official Fadhel Jawad, Baghdad can expel US forces because their presence isn’t based on legislation or a formal agreement.

Iraqi geopolitical analyst Sajad Jiyad explained that US forces violated the country’s constitution and statute laws “many times,” clear just cause for expelling them, adding:

“It’s a case of will the government be bold enough to take the initiative, or does it want to draw this out and pass the buck around?”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump regime “warned that the US could shut down Iraq’s access to the country’s central bank account held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.”

It “manag(es) the country’s finances, including revenue from oil sales. (Losing access) could restrict Iraq’s use of that revenue, creating a cash crunch in (its) financial system.”

According to Shwan Taha, chairman of Iraqi investment bank Rabee Securities, “(t)he Fed…has a (financial) stranglehold on the (country’s) entire economy.”

Baghdad needs to free itself from petrodollar bondage by conducting bilateral trade with other nations in its own currency and theirs.

It needs to pursue stronger relations with Russia, China, and other nations on a mutually cooperative basis, freeing itself from US control.

Otherwise, it’ll remains hostage to US imperial whims and will, a colonized nation, not a sovereign independent one.

US relations with Iraq and other countries it occupies is based on an unacceptable master/vassal arrangement.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi wants Pompeo to begin the process of withdrawing Pentagon forces from the country — details to be worked out through bilateral talks in Baghdad.

According to a statement from his office, Mahdi told Pompeo to “send delegates to Iraq to prepare a mechanism to carry out the parliament’s resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq,” adding:

US “forces had entered Iraq and drones are flying in its airspace without permission from Iraqi authorities and this was a violation of the bilateral agreements.”

During a Friday press conference in Washington, Pompeo rebuffed the request, saying:

“Our mission (in Iraq) is very clear. (We’re) there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS (sic),” adding: “We’re going to continue that mission.”

Trump called withdrawing US forces from Iraq “the worst thing to happen to” the country. “(T)his isn’t the right” time.

Fact: US troops in Iraq have nothing to do with combatting the scourge of ISIS Washington created and supports.

Fact: Their presence has everything to do with controlling the country and its resources, along with using Pentagon bases in its territory as platforms for endless regional wars.

Iraqis want freedom from US occupation. The Trump regime refuses to go. Pentagon forces are unlikely to be withdrawn any time soon.

Iran’s UN envoy Esmaeil Baghaei Hamaneh believes the Trump regime’s assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis pushed the envelope closer to ending US occupation of Iraq.

On Saturday, prominent Iraqi PMU commander Taleb Abbas Ali al-Saedi was lethally shot in Karbala, a city southwest of Baghdad — by an unknown gunman, according to Iraqi media, US dirty hands likely responsible.

Separately according to Iran’s Tasnim News, UK envoy to the Islamic Republic “Rob Macaire was arrested for hours for his involvement in provoking suspicious acts in a gathering held in front of Tehran Amir Kabir University on Saturday,” adding:

He’s accused of inciting students involved in protesting Iran’s announced accidental downing of a Ukraine airliner, US dirty hands perhaps responsible for orchestrating what happened.

“(F)reed a few hours later,” Macaire faces further questioning for his unacceptable actions.

Britain is no friend of Iran, partnered with Washington’s aim for regime change.

The presence of US and allied forces in the region assures endless wars, related violence, instability, and human misery — why it’s crucial to be rid of them.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Project Syndicate

On July 3, 1988 the US guided missile destroyer USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300 flying in Iranian airspace and carrying 290 civilians from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas, killing all aboard.

***

“I’ll never apologize for the United States of America, ever; I don’t care what the facts are,” said Vice President George H. W. Bush after the US Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 innocent people, including 66 children.

It’s too early to tell whether or not Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 shortly after the Boeing 737-8KV took off in Tehran on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board. One thing seems almost certain—if Iran did shoot down the plane, it was by accident. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Boris Johnson, his British counterpart, both claim to have intelligence and other evidence that Flight 752 was hit by one or more surface-to-air missiles, while US President Donald Trump opined that “somebody could have made a mistake on the other side.” It’s practically impossible to imagine a scenario in which Iran would intentionally target a Ukrainian commercial flight; fortunately, cool heads seem to be prevailing ahead of investigations of the incident.

‘I’ll Never Apologize for the United States of America’

For many Iranians, the Tehran tragedy brought back painful memories of a similar incident from more than 30 years ago during a period of similarly heightened tensions between the United States and Iran. On July 3, 1988 the US guided missile destroyer USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300 flying in Iranian airspace and carrying 290 civilians from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas, killing all aboard. The victims included people from six countries, including 66 children. The US maintains this was an accident, while Iran accused the US of an intentional act of state terrorism.

According to the official US account, the Vincennes’ crew misidentified the civilian airliner, claiming its flight profile was similar to that of the US-made F-14 Tomcat fighters sold to the Imperial Iranian Air Force during the last years of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s dictatorship. The latter years of the Iraq-Iran war—which began in 1980 after the US encouraged Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to invade his much larger neighbor — saw periodic skirmishes between US and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. On the morning of July 3 a US helicopter came under small arms fire from Iranian patrol boats; the Vincennes gave chase into Iranian waters, where it fired two surface-to-air missiles at the doomed airliner.

Serious questions were raised by the US account of the incident. First, the Vincennes’ Aegis Combat System, a state-of-the-art computer and radar tracking and guidance system, indicated the plane was climbing and not descending as an attacking F-14 would. Second, Flight 655 was transmitting the correct transponder “squawk” code for a commercial airliner, while maintaining radio communication in English with nearby air traffic controllers. Third, Iran argued that even if the plane had been a fighter jet, the US had no right to shoot it down, as it was in Iranian airspace and its flight path couldn’t possibly indicate an attack profile as it was climbing when attacked.

The Reagan administration told lie after lie about the incident. It claimed the Vincennes was in international waters at the time of the attack It was not. It said the ship acted in self defense against the “descending” plane; Flight 455 was climbing when it was shot down. It also claimed the flight had strayed from its usual route. It did not. It told the United Nations that the Vincennes was rushing to defend merchant shipping from Iranian attack, a complete fabrication.

President Ronald Reagan swiftly apologized to Iran for the incident, while Vice President George H.W. Bush—who was running for president that year—shocked the world with his response to his country’s mass killing of 290 innocent civilians. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America, ever,” he said on August 5. “I don’t care what the facts are.”

A subsequent Pentagon investigation concluded that Flight 655 “was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III (civilian), on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down.” In 1996, the United States agreed to pay over $60 million, or just over $213,000 per passenger, to families of Iran Air Flight 655 victims, without admitting any legal liability.

For the sailors of the USS Vincennes, praise, not punishment, was the order of the day. All received combat action ribbons, while the ship’s air warfare coordinator was awarded a commendation medal for the “heroic achievement” of “quickly and precisely completing the firing procedure” that shot down Flight 655. Captain Will Rogers III was honored with the Legion of Merit for his “outstanding service.”

‘A Bus with 73 Dogs’

While Iran Air Flight 655 was almost certainly a tragic accident, an earlier attack on a commercial airliner closer to home bears much more sinister US fingerprints.

On the balmy afternoon of October 6, 1976, Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, a DC-8 carrying 73 passengers, many of them teenage members of Cuba’s junior Olympic fencing team, took off from Barbados bound for Jamaica. The plane made a brief stop in Trinidad and Tobago, where two anti-Fidel Castro terrorists planted a pair of bombs, cleverly hidden inside a camera and a tube of toothpaste, aboard the plane. They exploded shortly after takeoff, blasting a hole in the plane and sparking a fire as it plunged into the sea. There were no survivors of what was, until September 11, 2001, the worst-ever act of airborne terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.

Shortly after the attack, one of the terrorists, Hernán Ricardo, phoned Orlando Bosch, a CIA-backed, Miami-based Cuban exile militant who, along with fellow anti-Castro terrorist and longtime CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles, planned the bombing. “A bus with 73 dogs went off a cliff,” Ricardo told Bosch. “All got killed.”

The CIA, under its new director at the time—none other than George H. W. Bush—knew as early as June 1976 that Cuban exiles were plotting to blow up a Cubana airliner, but did not warn Havana. Ricardo and his accomplice Freddy Lugo were arrested in Trinidad and Tobago. They confessed to the bombing and fingered Bosch and Posada Carriles as the masterminds of the attack. The four men were jailed in Venezuela but Bosch and Posada Carriles escaped. They eventually made their way back to Florida, where they were welcomed as heroes—the city of Miami even declared an official Orlando Bosch Day—and protected by Bush, who was now president. This, despite the Justice Department calling Posada Carriles, the hemisphere’s most wanted terrorist, “an unrepentant criminal and admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks.”

Bosch and Posada Carriles lived out the rest of their lives in sunny South Florida while relatives of Flight 455 victims waited for justice that was never delivered. Posada Carriles pursued a successful art career while Bosch made frequent media appearances, always insisting that “there were no innocents on that plane.” Roseanne Nenninger Persaud of Guyana, whose 19-year-old brother Raymond died on Flight 455, told the New York Times in 2006 that the perpetrators of the bombing should be “treated like [Osama] bin Laden.”

“If this were a plane full of Americans, it would have been a different story,” she said.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based freelance author and editor-at-large for US news at Digital Journal. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights, is archived at www.brettwilkins.com.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

On January 9th, Iraq’s Prime Minister and Parliament again ordered all American troops out, but on January 10th the AP headlined “US dismisses Iraq request to work on a troop withdrawal plan” and reported that the U.S. State Department “bluntly rejected the request, saying the two sides should instead talk about how to ‘recommit’ to their partnership.” It was not a “request” from Iraq; it was a command from them; and the U.S. and Iraq relate as conqueror and conquered, not as “partners.” Consequently: the U.S. Government, now that it has been so unequivocally ordered to leave, is back again, unequivocally, to its invader-occupier role in Iraq. 

The AP report went on to say that, “The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination to push ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.” Again there was that false word “request.” The AP report said that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted, in reply, “Our mission set there is very clear. We’ve been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, to continue the counter-Daesh campaign.” Though that’s the invader-occupier’s excuse, the reality is that the U.S. needs Iraq in order to invade Iran, which is the U.S. Government’s objective, though not overtly stated. 

Already, America’s assassination in Iraq of Iran’s top general Qasem Soleimani on January 3rd is an enormous act of war against Iran. It is intended to obliterate Iran’s main strategist, and this successful attack against Iran inside Iraq is a devastating first strike, by the U.S. Government against Iran.

So: now, the U.S. is at war against both Iraq and Iran.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

We have never heard a more damning description of the relationship between a corporation and its regulators than a line that has been plucked from a batch of company emails that Boeing has just handed over to the FAA (and which the FAA has, apparently, leaked to the press).

Per the New York Times:

“This airplane is designed by clowns, who are in turn supervised by monkeys…”

In recent weeks, a series of reports claiming Boeing neglected to turn over critical information to the FAA regarding the development of the 737 MAX 8, Boeing’s new “workhorse” model that has been grounded around the world for the last 10 months, after a pair of suspicious crashes raised suspicions of possible flaws in the plane’s anti-stall software.

According to more than 100 pages of internal company communications (which were apparently withheld from the FAA during the certification process for the jet) Boeing employees could be heard mocking federal rules, openly discussing their deception of regulators, and joking about the MAX’s potential flaws.

The most shocking messages were sent by Boeing pilots and other employees who can be seen discussing software issues and problems with the flight simulator software for hte MAX, which is particularly disturbing since it was issues with the plane’s MCAS software that were found to have contributed to two avoidable crashes and the brutal deaths of 346 people.

In one message, one Boeing employee openly admits to deceiving the FAA on behalf of the company.

“I still haven’t been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year,” one of the employees said in messages from 2018, apparently in reference to interactions with the Federal Aviation Administration.

In another, a group of Boeing test pilots agreed that they wouldn’t want their families flying with pilots trained on the new Boeing 737 MAX 8 flight simulator.

“Would you put your family on a Max simulator trained aircraft? I wouldn’t,” one employee said to a colleague in another exchange from 2018, before the first crash. “No,” the colleague responded.

As the New York Times explains, the release of these communications, both emails and instant messages, is “the latest embarrassing episode for Boeing in a crisis that has cost the company billions of dollars and wreaked havoc on the aviation industry across the globe.”

When allegations that Boeing withheld “damning” information from the FAA first surfaced late last year, Peter DeFazio, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, blasted the company in a letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

“These messages indicate that Boeing withheld damning information from the FAA, which is highly disturbing,” Peter DeFazio, Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives transportation committee, wrote in a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao on Friday.

It should go without saying that these messages “threaten to complicate Boeing’s relationship with the FAA” at a time when it’s still unclear when the MAX might be cleared to fly again.

Yet, as we mentioned above, this is only the latest and perhaps most jarring of a string of revelations citing internal documents and communications. Forget “regulatory capture” – a term that’s often used to criticize the revolving-door nature of Wall Street compliance officials and the regulatory agencies supposed to keep their firms in line – this is regulatory irrelevance.

And any Boeing shareholders who experienced an escalating dread as they read this post – it’s okay, you can relax.

Because once again, the market just doesn’t care. Plane crashes have been normalized in 2020, and so, apparently, has gross incompetence and contempt for both government regulators and the broader public.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author

Presidents Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin issued a joint statement in which called the Prime Minister of the Libyan Government of National Accord, Fayez Sarraj, and the leader of the Libyan National Army, strongman Khalifa Haftar, for a cease-fire.

The counterparts took this initiative in different ways: Sarraj happily agreed, and Haftar did not respond so clearly.

On January 9, the Libyan National Army spokesperson, Major General Ahmed Al-Mismari, released a statement on the Turkish- Russian initiative. His speech contained unusual details worth analysing.

First of all, Al-Mismari said that the Libyan army supports the Russian President’s proposal. It should be noted that the General did not mention Recep Erdogan during his speech.

The hostility of the spokesperson is clearly due to the fact that Turkey is actually participating in the Libyan civil war. The Turkish parliament approved sending Turkish troops to Libya to support the GNA in Tripoli, and Turkey has been deploying its forces in the African country. In addition, earlier, Ankara repeatedly supplied arms and military equipment to Sarraj, including drones in violation of international sanctions, as evidenced by a leak from documents between the Libyan Central Bank and the Turkish military company SSTEK. It is known that the GNA spent more than $ 600 million on the illegal purchase of arms and military equipment from Turkey.

Furthermore, Al-Mesmari indicated that the Libyan National Army would continue the military operation to liberate Tripoli from the terrorists anyway. Thus, he made it clear that Sarraj’s government is not politically independent because it cooperates with illegal armed groups and therefore can not participate in a political settlement in Libya.

The Libyan National Army’s response to the Turkish and Russian leaders’ proposal demonstrated the real position of the Libyan Army regarding the settlement of the Libyan conflict. Despite respecting the initiative of the Russian authority, Haftar clarified that retreat is not possible as long as the capital is controlled by a group of criminals and terrorist groups led by the National Accord Government.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Hassan Mansour is a Libyan freelance journalist.

Italy, Russia and Turkey have been pressing for an end to the war in Libya between the Parliament-backed Libyan National Army (LNA) and the Turkish-backed Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. Pressure to put an end to the LNA offensive was received by General Khalifa Haftar, who continues to advance on jihadist forces loyal to the GNA, after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin made a joint statement to “declare a sustainable ceasefire, supported by the necessary measures to be taken for stabilizing the situation on the ground and normalizing daily life in Tripoli and other cities,” with the ceasefire to begin at midnight on Sunday. The Libyan general also had a private meeting on Wednesday with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who called on Haftar to order the cessation of military action, as according to Conte, the only viable solution is a political solution.

Although the LNA’s efforts to liberate Libyan territory from the GNA began in April, it slowly grinded down to a halt and stalemate. However, Erdoğan in a gross miscalculation that left him isolated and with no international support, set tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean alight when him and GNA leader, Fayez al-Sarraj, an ethnic Turk himself, signed a Memorandum of Understanding in late November 2019 that redrew maritime borders that massively infringed on Greece’s maritime space.

Haftar took every advantage of the renewed tensions between Turkey and Greece and successfully swayed Athens to withdraw relations with the internationally recognized GNA and back the LNA. This was important as Greece became the first NATO and EU member to openly back the LNA, sparking a new offensive by the LNA against the GNA. Since the signing of the memorandum between Erdoğan and Sarraj, Egypt has not only provided weaponry and equipment to the LNA, Cairo has threatened to attack Turkey if it involves itself in Libya just as the United Arab Emirates continues to conduct airstrikes against the GNA.

The LNA with renewed and strengthened international support just days ago liberated the symbolic city of Sirte, the birthplace of Libya’s historic leader, Muammar Gaddafi. This is a major blow as the LNA has now also officially reached Tripoli and is only a few kilometres from the center of Libya’s capital. The simultaneous operations have meant that the GNA, whose forces just days ago beheaded an LNA scout in similar fashion to ISIS barbarity, is not only feeling pressure in the capital, but LNA forces have continued their offensive beyond Sirte and are now only 100 kilometers from Misrata. This will surely divide GNA forces considering many of the militias fighting in Tripoli on the side of the GNA are originally from Misrata, the first major city to fall during the NATO-backed destruction of Libya in 2011.

Saraj had contacts with top European Union officials this week, who also called for an end to armed violence, however they failed to convince Haftar to end military operations. Turkey has already sent military supplies, military advisers and Syria-based jihadists to Libya. Any ceasefire will only allow GNA forces to regroup and resupply while the LNA would lose its momentum with the massive advances they are currently making.

Russia has little influence over the LNA and there is no incentive for the LNA to accept the ceasefire. In Syria, Russia has strongly supported Damascus economically and militarily, while Turkey has supported jihadist groups. However, Syria is not Libya, with the LNA relying on Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It is for this reason that Haftar has unconditionally rejected the call for a ceasefire as they have vowed to defeat Turkish-backed forces unconditionally. The LNA is more heavily reliant on air support and intelligence from the Abu Dhabi, and material support and intelligence from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Putin, despite making the joint statement for a ceasefire with Erdoğan, likely would have known the LNA were going to reject the ceasefire request. It is likely that Putin did so as an act of good will to preserve the strengthening Russian-Turkish economic and cultural relations just as the Turkstream pipeline was inaugurated on Wednesday. Therefore, Putin made the call for a ceasefire knowing full well it would be rejected. As the LNA continues to approach Misrata, it is likely the militias originally from Misrata will leave Tripoli for their own hometown, further weakening the GNA’s defences in Tripoli, which will lead to the LNA liberating the capital city. Haftar will not surrender his advantage for a ceasefire with forces who are serving Turkish interests and behead their soldiers in an ISIS-like fashion.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Although the repo market is little known to most people, it is a $1-trillion-a-day credit machine, in which not just banks but hedge funds and other “shadow banks” borrow to finance their trades. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the central bank’s lending window is open only to licensed depository banks; but the Fed is now pouring billions of dollars into the repo (repurchase agreements) market, in effect making risk-free loans to speculators at less than 2%.

This does not serve the real economy, in which products, services and jobs are created. However, the Fed is trapped into this speculative monetary expansion to avoid a cascade of defaults of the sort it was facing with the long-term capital management crisis in 1998 and the Lehman crisis in 2008. The repo market is a fragile house of cards waiting for a strong wind to blow it down, propped up by misguided monetary policies that have forced central banks to underwrite its highly risky ventures.

The Financial Economy Versus the Real Economy

The Fed’s dilemma was graphically illustrated in a Dec. 19 podcast by entrepreneur/investor George Gammon, who explained we actually have two economies – the “real” (productive) economy and the “financialized” economy. “Financialization” is defined at Wikipedia as “a pattern of accumulation in which profits accrue primarily through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production.” Rather than producing things itself, financialization feeds on the profits of others who produce.

The financialized economy – including stocks, corporate bonds and real estate – is now booming. Meanwhile, the bulk of the population struggles to meet daily expenses. The world’s 500 richest people got $12 trillion richer in 2019, while 45% of Americans have no savings, and nearly 70% could not come up with $1,000 in an emergency without borrowing.

Gammon explains that central bank policies intended to boost the real economy have had the effect only of boosting the financial economy. The policies’ stated purpose is to increase spending by increasing lending by banks, which are supposed to be the vehicles for liquidity to flow from the financial to the real economy. But this transmission mechanism isn’t working, because consumers are tapped out. They can’t spend more unless their incomes go up, and the only way to increase incomes, says Gammon, is through increasing production (or with a good dose of “helicopter money,” but more on that later).

So why aren’t businesses putting money into more production? Because, says Gammon, the central banks have put a “put” on the financial market, meaning they won’t let it go down. Business owners say, “Why should I take the risk of more productivity, when I can just invest in the real estate, stock or corporate bond market and make risk-free money?” The result is less productivity and less spending in the real economy, while the “easy money” created by banks and central banks is used for short-term gain from unproductive financial investments.

Existing assets are bought just to sell them or rent them for more, skimming profits off the top. These unearned “rentier” profits rely on ready access to liquidity (the ability to buy and sell on demand) and on leverage (using borrowed money to increase returns), and both are ultimately underwritten by the central banks. As observed in a July 2019 article titled “Financialization Undermines the Real Economy”:

When large highly leveraged financial institutions in these markets collapse, e.g., Lehman Brothers in September 2008, central banks are forced to step in to salvage the financial system. Thus, many central banks have little choice but to become securities market makers of last resort, providing safety nets for financialized universal banks and shadow banks.

Repo Madness

That is what is happening now in the repo market. Repos work like a pawn shop: the lender takes an asset (usually a federal security) in exchange for cash, with an agreement to return the asset for the cash plus interest the next day unless the loan is rolled over. In September 2019, rates on repos should have been about 2%, in line with the fed funds rate (the rate at which banks borrow deposits from each other). However, repo rates shot up to 10% on Sept. 17. Yet banks were refusing to lend to each other, evidently passing up big profits to hold onto their cash. Since banks weren’t lending, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York jumped in, increasing its overnight repo operations to $75 billion. On Oct. 23, it upped the ante to $165 billion, evidently to plug a hole in the repo market created when JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest depository bank, pulled an equivalent sum out. (For details, see my earlier post here.)

By December, the total injected by the Fed was up to $323 billion. What was the perceived danger lurking behind this unprecedented action? An article in The Quarterly Review of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) pointed to the hedge funds. As ZeroHedge summarized the BIS’ findings:

[C]ontrary to our initial take that banks were pulling from the repo market due to counterparty fears about other banks, they were instead spooked by overexposure by other hedge funds, who have become the dominant marginal – and completely unregulated – repo counterparty to liquidity lending banks; without said liquidity, massive hedge fund regulatory leverage such as that shown above would become effectively impossible.

Hedge funds have been blamed for the 2008 financial crisis, by adding too much risk to the banking system. They have destroyed companies by forcing stock buybacks, asset sales, layoffs and other measures that raise stock prices at the expense of the company’s long-term health and productivity. They have also been a major factor in the homelessness epidemic, by buying foreclosed properties at fire sale prices, then renting them out at inflated prices. Why did the Fed need to bail these parasitic institutions out? The BIS authors explained:

Repo markets redistribute liquidity between financial institutions: not only banks (as is the case with the federal funds market), but also insurance companies, asset managers, money market funds and other institutional investors. In so doing, they help other financial markets to function smoothly. Thus, any sustained disruption in this market, with daily turnover in the U.S. market of about $1 trillion, could quickly ripple through the financial system. The freezing-up of repo markets in late 2008 was one of the most damaging aspects of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC).

At $1 trillion daily, the repo market is much bigger and more global than the fed funds market that is the usual target of central bank policy. Repo trades are supposedly secured with “high-quality collateral” (usually U.S. Treasuries). But they are not risk-free, because of the practice of “re-hypothecation”: the short-term “owner” of the collateral can use it as collateral for another loan, creating leverage – loans upon loans. The IMF has estimated that the same collateral was reused 2.2 times in 2018, which means both the original owner and 2.2 subsequent re-users believed they owned the same collateral. This leveraging, which actually expands the money supply, is one of the reasons banks put their extra funds in the repo market rather than in the fed funds market. But it is also why the repo market and the U.S. Treasuries it uses as collateral are not risk-free. As Wall Street veteran Caitlin Long warns:

U.S. Treasuries are … the most rehypothecated asset in financial markets, and the big banks know this. … U.S. Treasuries are the core asset used by every financial institution to satisfy its capital and liquidity requirements – which means that no one really knows how big the hole is at a system-wide level.

This is the real reason why the repo market periodically seizes up. It’s akin to musical chairs – no one knows how many players will be without a chair until the music stops.

ZeroHedge cautions that hedge funds are the most heavily leveraged multi-strategy funds in the world, taking something like $20 billion to $30 billion in net assets under management and levering it up to $200 billion. According to The Financial Times, to fire up returns, “some hedge funds take the Treasury security they have just bought and use it to secure cash loans in the repo market. They then use this fresh cash to increase the size of the trade, repeating the process over and over and ratcheting up the potential returns.”

ZeroHedge concludes:

This … explains why the Fed panicked in response to the GC repo rate blowing out to 10% on Sept 16, and instantly implemented repos as well as rushed to launch QE 4: not only was Fed Chair Powell facing an LTCM [Long Term Capital Management] like situation, but because the repo-funded [arbitrage] was (ab)used by most multi-strat funds, the Federal Reserve was suddenly facing a constellation of multiple LTCM blow-ups that could have started an avalanche that would have resulted in trillions of assets being forcefully liquidated as a tsunami of margin calls hit the hedge funds world.

“Helicopter Money” – The Only Way Out?

The Fed has been forced by its own policies to create an avalanche of speculative liquidity that never makes it into the real economy. As Gammon explains, the central banks have created a wall that traps this liquidity in the financial markets, driving stocks, corporate bonds and real estate to all-time highs, creating an “everything bubble” that accomplishes only one thing – increased wealth inequality. Central bank quantitative easing won’t create hyperinflation, says Gammon, but “it will create a huge discrepancy between the haves and have nots that will totally wipe out the middle class, and that will bring on MMT or helicopter money. Why? Because it’s the only way that the Fed can get the liquidity from the financial economy, over this wall, around the banking system, and into the real economy. It’s the only solution they have.” Gammon does not think it’s the right solution, but he is not alone in predicting that helicopter money is coming.

Investopedia notes that “helicopter money” differs from quantitative easing (QE), the money-printing tool currently used by central banks. QE involves central bank-created money used to purchase assets from bank balance sheets. Helicopter money, on the other hand, involves a direct distribution of printed money to the public.

A direct drop of money on the people would certainly help to stimulate the economy, but it won’t get the parasite of financialization off our backs; and Gammon is probably right that the Fed lacks the tools to fix the underlying disease itself. Only Congress can change the Federal Reserve Act and the tax system. Congress could impose a 0.1% financial transactions tax, which would nip high-frequency speculative trading in the bud. Congress could turn the Federal Reserve into a public utility mandated to serve the productive economy. Commercial banks could also be regulated as public utilities, and public banks could be established that served the liquidity needs of local economies. For other possibilities, see Banking on the People here.

Solutions are available, but Congress itself has been captured by the financial markets, and it may take another economic collapse to motivate Congress to act. The current repo crisis could be the fuse that triggers that collapse.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was first posted on Truthdig.com.

Ellen Brown chairs the Public Banking Institute and has written thirteen books, including her latest, Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age.  She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

What we witnessed last week was unprecedented in international affairs: the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Suleimani, as well as a senior Iraqi military commander. Why did Trump decide to engage in this lawless, reckless act? Was it just because he hated the Obama-era nuclear accord that he unlawfully withdrew from? It is a little more than that, and requires some background.

For Trump, this goes all the way back to his campaign and his first meeting with the Pentagon generals in his Oval Office. One of the reasons he was elected was because he spoke openly about ending useless wars, bringing troops home, etc. The Pentagon generals met him only once in his Oval Office in the White House, and furious at his views, demanded that all future meetings take place in ‘the Tank’ – what they call the Pentagon. There, they felt they would be in charge and Trump would have no choice but to take orders.

What has happened during the past three plus years is a slow-motion coup d’etat against Trump since even before he entered office by the military-intelligence apparatus, or the Deep State, in alliance with the most nefarious sections of the Democratic Party. The contempt for Trump has had nothing to do with his vile racism, xenophobia, pathological lying, and imbecilic threats and tweets.

However, it did have to do with the veil of a multicultural, melting pot liberal Western order that he completely tore apart through his domestic bravado.

Internationally, it was somewhat the opposite. That entailed Trump’s campaign promises to end these endless, meaningless wars, make ‘deals’ with the North Koreans and start removing all these costly global US military bases, including in the Middle East.

This is what made elite political discourse in the US under Trump anything unlike in the 21st or 20th century. One has to go back to the US Civil War in the 1860s to find such intra-elite factional infighting.

When a former CIA director goes on national TV in the US and calls a sitting president’s behavior as treasonous – the crime for treason being the death penalty – one knows that there are significant factions of the permanent military-intelligence complex, the Deep State, that have the CIA director’s back. Otherwise, such a remark by a CIA Director about the President of the United States would be unthinkable.

The intense frustration of the intelligence agencies at not being able to first oust Trump first for the absurd ‘Russiagate’ investigations lasting more than two years, and now a ‘Ukrainian-gate’ phone call scandal, has left them hopelessly restless.

Nevertheless, that does not imply that their incredible pressure on Trump on foreign policy has not coerced the president to accede to their demands some of the times. Whether it was halting any further diplomatic negotiations with North Korea, withdrawing from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc. as quickly as possible – the Deep State conveyed to Trump in no uncertain terms that these were ‘no-go’ areas for him and to not even try to interfere in these matters.

Like the emperor Constantine feeling besieged by his time’s new wave of mass conversion to prophetic, revolutionary Christianity, the emperor finally decided: why fight them, just join them! Hence, you had the conversion of Christianity, a prophetic moral-ethical emancipatory force, to Christendom – an empire of and for the powerful. Trump has effectively done the same thing in his last year in office, hoping he can adequately placate the Deep State so that this time (unlike in 2016) the latter doesn’t object to his potential re-election this year.

While the war hawk on steroids John Bolton, whose fantasy was wiping Iran off the map, had a short shelf-life in Trump’s administration, there still remains a Secretary of State who’s equally reckless, idiotic, and dangerous.

Mike Pompeo, along with a small neo-con faction of the Deep State, wanted Qasim Suleimani out of the picture for a variety of reasons.

First, Suleimani understood the American forces in West Asia all too-well having worked closely with them both in defeating Taliban and ISIS forces – and Suleimani’s knowledge of the American military’s modus operandi was ‘too close for comfort.’

Second, whether you liked him or hated him, Suleimani was undoubtedly the most formidable commander (regardless of his country of origin) over the past decade in leading and guiding forces in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen – and perhaps other places as well – in defeating salafi jihadis of the Al Qaeda and ISIS types. This fact is not merely some regional Shia hagiography of the man. This is the CIA’s own assessment.

Third, because of his mastery in the battles against and defense from these salafi jihadi forces – routing them out everywhere they may crop up – Suleimani therefore became to be perceived as a threat to complete American hegemony over the world’s most energy-rich region. If a commander from a nation that the US despises the most can accomplish virtually any victory he so desires, plans for US domination of the oil resources and profits in the region, with ‘futures derivatives’ on the stock market on the price of oil in the pipeline, then the risk (of keeping this character in the picture) was deemed to great to Uncle Sam’s policy of ‘what we say goes’ here and everywhere.

And fourth and relatedly, if it is true that the Iraqi Prime Minister had received messages from the Saudis about wanting to open up diplomatic channels with Tehran, since even MBS realized by now that he is not invincible and may even be dispensable for the Americans – then this same zealous faction of Pompeo-led neocon fanatics of the Deep State perceived this to be the absolute anathema to all of their designs over the region. In fact, it was precisely the prestige and influence of Suleimani that was needed by both the Iraqis and Saudis to make any such talks meaningful and substantive. The insane levels of contempt demonstrated toward Iran by this neo-con faction is not without any merit, I suppose. It is not Iran’s human rights abuses or theocratic rule that bothers them. What irks hawkish planners in DC is Iran’s independence and assertion of its own sovereignty since 1979, not playing the game like they should be like the surrounding quisling client regimes of the American empire.

Nevertheless, the devil here is most certainly in the details – because the details reveal plenty. So Gen. Suleimani, who for all effective purposes was considered to be the second highest/most respected government official in Iran, was assassinated by a drone attack by the US in a so-called ‘partner country’ (Iraq) at the Baghdad airport, along with a senior Iraqi commander as well. Let us be clear: these are not paramilitary or militia leaders subject to an American targeted assassination program. These are senior government officials.

In an interview with one of the world’s most highly respected scholars of international law, and a world-renowned public intellectual for peace and justice, Richard Falk notes that no matter how incredibly dangerous moments sometimes reached during the Cold War, it was utterly unimaginable that the US (or the USSR) would directly, themselves, assassinate a senior serving government official of the other nation. Proxy wars would be fought between the two from Afghanistan to Southern Africa, but such a flagrant act, if done by the US to the USSR, for example, would probably have precipitated a nuclear response. That is how unthinkable it was to do such a blatantly unlawful act of, basically, international terrorism directed toward government officials.

To my knowledge, such were the tactics of the anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th century who had their own justifiable reasons for targeting certain oppressive rulers, czars, and state torturers. But of course, with regard to states and their behavior, we have something called the United Nations as well numerous treaties and conventions of which the US is a signatory – but is now catching up with Israel in casually and routinely violating both international and US domestic law on at least a weekly basis. In fact, it’s become so evident that the US has degenerated into a lawless, rogue state that even the normally docile Congress is finally saying wait a minute, the President will need our authorization before he undertakes such an illegal international assassination again, and may even have the courage to play its constitutional role in declaring war first before allowing the executive branch to execute it.

And so what makes this whole dangerous psycho-drama even more interesting is the Iranian response to this unprecedented dastardly act against a government servant revered in his country and beyond – at the very least for fighting off salafi jihadis trying to infiltrate every country in the region. Tehran said it would respond, it informed Baghdad about what it would do, and then did it.

Iranian ballistic missiles targeted  Western-based military bases in Iraq to make three points:

a) we don’t have to target the bases right on our border, our missiles can go way further than that;

b) let’s see how great those missile defense systems of the Americans are, which were unable to intercept a single one of the ballistic missiles even though the Pentagon admits that it knew this was being planned; and

c) unlike arrogant hegemonic powers who could care less about ‘collateral damage,’ our assault was a symbolic one to just send a message, not to harm or injure a soul.

Can anyone recall when is the last time a country harmed or bombed in some capacity by the US had the will power to respond in this way outside of the context of full-scale war? Twenty-four Pakistani soldiers were killed in the Salala massacre, Pakistan being a so-called ‘non-NATO ally’ – and the US even refused to issue an apology, causing the US ambassador to Pakistan to, in principle, resign. Pakistan is a country of 220 million with nuclear weapons and a military that dwarfs Iran’s. But we could not even imagine even ‘returning the favor’ – even symbolically. Our constant mantra is that ‘we’ll be bombed to the stone age’ for any independence and self-respect we demonstrate.

For DC think tankers, chicken hawks, and their stooges across the Global South, the fact that the longest war in US history against one of the poorest countries in the world could not even be won, forget about the mess created in the Middle East with American actions only leading to the strengthening of new players on the bloc, such as Iran, Russia, and China – the fact that Iran had the audacity to retaliate like this should all speak for itself.

Rather, even more significant is President Trump’s speech the next day after the Iranian ballistic missile attacks. After blabbering for around seven minutes about how Iran is so horrible and that the US has big and tall weapons, during the last 1-2 minutes, he goes on to say that the US and Iran have a lot in common in fighting ISIS, should cooperate on various fronts, and that the US desires peace. If Trump goes, we will certainly miss these schizophrenic comedy acts!

It was clear that the dominant factions of the Deep State and their Wall Street friends conveyed the message loud and clear: Pompeo, please move to the side, and we will take over now. And now Trump will listen to them and tell Pompeo to take a break and go play some golf. The dominant factions of the Deep State realize that the neocon games of setting fire to the Middle East, and especially unleashing full Iranian and Iranian-backed force throughout the region, not to mention its utter and unshakeable control over the Strait of Hormuz, will wreck the global economy within a matter of days.

The second chance given to the neo-cons to try to pull off a ‘re-mapping’ of the Middle East has failed. The American empire is slipping and fading away, slowly and gradually but surely. If you give the war hawks a third chance, that decline won’t be so gradual. The American Deep State, with any of the sensible generals and politicos within it, have to make a decision whether their imperial landing (ending) will be a soft one or a hard one.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Junaid S. Ahmad is Professor of Islam and Decolonial Thought and Director the Center for Global Studies, UMT, Lahore, Pakistan, and is the Secretary-General of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

A new study reveals yet another major unintended effect from the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing tool – with potentially serious implications for the food safety of gene-edited plants. The study found that CRISPR-Cas9 edits intended to knockout the function of a gene fail to do so. Instead, proteins are still produced from the damaged genes, many of which are still functional. The result could be the production of gene-edited plants that are toxic or allergenic.

This suggests existing CRISPR-edited plants with gene knockouts, such as the non-browning mushroom that has been de-regulated in the US, should be subjected to extensive safety checks, as they could contain new proteins or compounds that pose a food safety risk.

Background

Every living cell contains genes that code for proteins that perform all essential functions that constitute a living organism, such as building the structures of our bodies, digesting food, or sensing the environment. However, many genes, and the proteins they code for, have unknown functions. In humans, one in five genes has an unknown function. One approach that scientists use to try to find out the function of proteins is to mutate (disrupt) the structure of the gene encoding a given protein and then monitor the consequences of this “knockout”.

The invention of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing tool has allowed scientists to generate gene knockouts far more easily than was possible in the past. CRISPR-Cas9 makes a double-strand cut in the DNA to disable (knockout) a gene, which, scientists have hitherto believed, makes the proteins it codes for nonfunctional. Scientists can then watch what happens to cells or an entire organism as a result, inferring the lost function from what goes wrong.

Scientists were “terribly wrong”

As explained by an article in The Wire, the Cas9 enzyme searches the DNA, using a “guide RNA” to look for a specific sequence, and makes a cut where it finds a match. The gene, split in two, is repaired by the cell, but often results in varying lengths of DNA base units being deleted or added (indels). The Wire article explains, “Many scientists assume that if a chunk of a gene is missing then the protein that it encodes will not function, or even be produced” – but “In many cases, they would be terribly wrong.”

The article highlights the new study, by researchers at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, which shows exactly why. Using HAP1 cells, a human cell line used for biomedical and genetic research, the researchers used CRISPR to make cuts in 136 different genes. In about a third of cases, proteins were still produced from these “damaged” genes – and many of the proteins remained partially functional.

What does this mean for plant gene editing?

London-based molecular geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou explained the relevance of the new study in a plant agricultural context:

“Hundreds or thousands of gene knockouts via CRISPR have been reported in plants, with even more planned in the future. The new study implies that a third of these claimed CRISPR-mediated gene knockouts were not complete knockouts, but only partial knockouts. In some cases there was no reduction at all in gene expression because an almost fully functional protein was still made.

“Worryingly, the most frequent outcomes were truncations of the original protein or proteins with a central deletion within their structure. These mutant proteins may not only partially retain the function of the full-length protein, as reported in the study, but could also gain a novel function, with unknown consequences.”

Dr Antoniou continued,

“In gene-edited crops and foods with CRISPR-mediated gene knockouts of this type, such mutant proteins could give rise to an altered biochemistry which could lead to the production of novel toxins or allergens. Or the truncated protein itself could have toxic or allergenic qualities.”

Will systematic characterization of protein expression solve the problems?

The authors of the new study conclude their paper by saying, “Our results imply that systematic characterization of residual protein expression or function in CRISPR–Cas9-generated KO [knockout] lines is necessary for phenotype interpretation.”

However, Dr Antoniou said, “In order for plant genetic engineers to do this, they would have to conduct an in-depth molecular profiling of their edited plant in order to get a more complete picture of the consequences of the CRISPR edit, including any risks to the environment or health of the consumer. If they did carry out such profiling, it is likely that unintended differences will be found in the edited plant, making it non-substantially equivalent to its non-GM parent. At this point, a comprehensive toxicity and allergenicity assessment should be required, including long-term animal feeding studies.”

But that’s something that industry has never done with any GM food or crop. The few long-term feeding studies that have been carried out on GM foods and crops have been the work of scientists working outside the industry.

Study builds on earlier findings

This new study builds on earlier observations by Tuladhar and colleagues, which showed that in 50% of mammalian cell lines investigated, CRISPR-mediated gene knockouts resulted in an altered genetic code at the intended editing site with the production of a novel mRNA and/or protein.

The new study reveals additional mechanisms through which undesirable outcomes can occur at the intended editing site, with unknown consequences.

Non-browning mushroom should be investigated for safety

The discovery that undesirable outcomes can occur at the intended editing site through multiple mechanisms suggests that existing CRISPR-edited plants with gene knockouts, such as the non-browning mushroom that has been de-regulated in the US, should be subjected to extensive safety checks. The mushroom was engineered by knocking out one of six genes that encode for the browning effect after the mushroom has been cut into.

The developer of the mushroom, Yinong Yang of Pennsylvania State University in the USA, emphasized that it did not need to be regulated since it was free from transgenes (genes inserted from another organism) and only contained “small deletions in a specific gene”. However, it is now evident that Yang and the US regulators should re-assess their claims of safety for this gene-edited mushroom in the light of the findings of the new study, as well as that of Tuladhar and colleagues. The simple “small deletion” in a single gene in the CRISPR-edited mushroom that is assumed to be innocuous may have led to the production of new proteins and altered biochemistry that pose a food safety risk. An Internet search has turned up no evidence that Yang has conducted thorough investigations that could show the mushroom to be safe to eat.

The new study also shows that Australia’s decision to de-regulate gene-edited organisms of the class known as SDN-1 – involving just this type of gene knockout and the subsequent re-joining of the cut ends of the DNA by the cell’s repair mechanism – is not scientifically defensible. This is because even supposedly simple deletions of a few DNA base units, performed with the aim of knocking out a gene, can result in the production of novel toxins or allergens.

Making the CRISPR tool more “precise” won’t solve the problems

Dr Antoniou explained that both the findings of this latest study, as well as the earlier observations by Tuladhar and colleagues, show that undesirable effects occur at the site targeted for gene editing after the editing event has taken place; that is, the mutant proteins are produced after the editing event. He said, “These effects are completely independent of the gene-editing tool and the editing procedure as whole. Therefore no matter how precisely the editing event is targeted through future technological developments, the problematic outcomes highlighted by these studies are inevitable. There is no way of avoiding these issues because they arise from the innate properties of the basic molecular biology of gene expression.

“Thus people using CRISPR for gene knockout must do so with extreme caution, not only in the medical sphere but also in an agricultural context.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: CRISPR (= Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) + DNA fragment, E.Coli, by Mulepati, S., Bailey, S., via Wiki Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

It’s vitally needed in the US nationwide, in other Western countries and elsewhere.

It’s needed in large numbers, staying the course longterm, reviving the Vietnam era anti-war spirit in America.

January 9 was “No War With Iran Day of Action,” protests held in 180 US cities nationwide — sponsored by numerous organizations, including Veterans Against the War, NIAC Action, Win Without War, CODEPINK, Peace Action, Public Citizen, Veterans for Peace, and many other anti-war groups.

A Veterans for Peace statement said it “strongly condemns any and all US aggression (on) Iran and calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq,” adding:

“War with Iran would be yet another bloody disaster in the region and initiate another endless war.”

The organization endorsed anti-war days of action on January 9 and others to follow.

What’s needed is far more than action in the streets against war on Iran. Nationwide activism to end all US wars of aggression is vital, including ones waged by other means.

In the 1960s and 70s, activists and anti-war groups united against US war in Southeast Asia.

Students, workers, middle class households, academics, and others were involved in large numbers nationwide.

In 1965, anti-war activism gained momentum when the Pentagon began terror-bombing North Vietnam.

Protest marches rallied at the Oakland Army Terminal, the departure point for many troops to Southeast Asia.

Faculty members on US college campuses held teach-ins to educate students about the immorality, unlawfulness, and political foundation of warmaking.

In April 1965, a Washington rally by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) drew around 25,000.

Numerous anti-war events followed nationwide, thousands participating.

At a time before US military service was volunteer, resistance leaders urged young men to burn their draft cards in protest against war.

Underground networks helped draft resisters leave the country. Churches offered sanctuary. Anti-war activism among civil rights leaders provided more impetus, notably by Martin Luther King.

On April 4, 1967, a year to the day before his state-sponsored assassination, he delivered his memorable New York Riverside Church anti-war speech called “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.”

Unmentioned by establishment media during annual Martin Luther King Day commemorations, he called the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” adding:

“It’s “on the wrong side of a world revolution. We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence, or violent co-annihilation.”

“We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”

Silence is “betrayal,” he stressed, calling war in Vietnam “an enemy of the poor.”

“(I)t should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life (in) America today can ignore the present war.”

“If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam.”

“This madness must cease…We must stop now…We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam.”

He called for a “revolution of values…declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism — ending by quoting James Russell Lowell (1819 – 1891), saying:

“Once to every man and nation

Comes the moment to decide,

In the strife of truth and falsehood, For the good or evil side…”

That time is now, King stressed, his anti-war dream unfulfilled over half a century later, things today dismal than back then.

Calling US warmakers “criminals,” he stressed that ruling authorities in Washington and congressional supporters “committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.”

Condemning the US as the world’s most villainous nation, he said “(o)ur only hope (depends on) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.”

Sustained anti-war activism nationwide got Nixon to suspend US offensive action against North Vietnam on January 15, 1973 — signed by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in Paris, France on January 27, 1973.

In June, the congressional Church-Case amendment ended war funding, effective August 15.

On April 30, 1975, Washington ended its Southeast Asia involvement with a humiliating Saigon embassy rooftop pullout.

It took years of sustained anti-war activism to achieve it, what’s needed today to end all US wars of aggression, withdraw US forces from regions where they rage, and slash military spending, turning swords into plowshares.

What happened before can happen again. It takes judgment, spirit, guts, and commitment — staying the course for peace in all active US war theaters, including ones waged by other means.

We have a choice. We can end wars of aggression against one nation after another or risk eventual nuclear war ending us.

If not now, when? If not us, who? If not soon, maybe it’ll be too late to save us.

If that’s not incentive enough, what is?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Edwin Starr in 1970, had this hit song War.

This was of course during the apex of the phony war on Vietnam.

One line of the lyrics that resounded so well for this writer was:

.

.

War
Friend only to the undertaker
War
War
War-Good God, now
Now
Give it to me one time now
Now now
What is it good for? 

The 2003 illegal and, may I include, immoral US invasion and occupation of Iraq opened up a Pandora’s box of terrible repercussions that to this day, nearly 17 years later, still resonate. Yet, for this empire, what it succeeded in doing was to gift various US corporations $50 Billion of reconstruction contracts. You see, what the grifter community calls the Long Con is to attack a country on false claims, destroy much of its infrastructure, occupy the damaged mess you created and make gazillions from taxpayer money. As the helicopter tail gunner in the film Full Metal Jacket exclaimed as he stood there, arbitrarily murdering civilians: Ain’t war great!  

After the phony invasion in March of 2003 the bu…hit named Coalition Provisional Authority took money from the Iraqis and dished it out to a number of international corporations. They justified this robbery as compensation for ‘lost profits’ and ‘decline in business’ due to the ‘aggressive actions’ of Saddam Hussein since 1990.

My Yiddish speaking friends call that Chutzpah!

Believe it or not, US based  companies like Sheraton received $11 million , Bechtel $ 7 million, Mobil $2.3 million, KFC some $ 321,000…. even Toys R Us got $190,000. OH, and Israeli farmers received $8 million…. and listen to this: They were not able to harvest fully due to the threat from Saddam’s regime. Plus, Israeli hoteliers and travel agencies received $15 million. I kid you not!

Now, while this was all going on, 500,000 Iraqi citizens lost their jobs, and soon after that over 50% of the workforce became unemployed. And people now ask why they want us the hell OUT of their country? When they ended the (so called) ‘War in Iraq’ in 2011, seven million Iraqis lived below the poverty line. Large amounts of Iraqi money were paid out to those infamous and humanitarian US corporations for local projects. Most were never completed, and corruption was rampant… by all parties concerned, Iraqi and American.

Sarah Anderson wrote a great piece on Global Research about how even the threat of war makes money for the top military contractors. Look below to see how the top 5 military contractors made a bundle right after the killing of General Suleimani:

*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying

What is needed in our fine nation is for we, the good and decent folks, to start demanding action. We must demand that the majority of our almost 1000 foreign bases be closed and personnel returned home. We need to make drastic cuts in this obscene military spending, whereupon 50% of our federal tax money goes down that rabbit hole. Take the savings, of treasure and US military lives, and fix our broken safety net… period! Oh, and how about we use eminent domain and nationalize all military contracting companies… at NON PROFIT! Maybe then Edwin Starr’s song would be a great reminder of what used to be…

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘ It’s the Empire… Stupid ‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

Ten days have passed since US President Donald J. Trump ordered the assassination of Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRCG) Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani, and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Soleimani had just arrived at Baghdad International airport from Damascus at the invitation of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi for a declared diplomatic peace mission to lessen tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

The White House was provided with important details from Israeli intelligence and carried out the airstrike without congressional support or knowledge and without providing a shred of evidence that Soleimani was planning attacks on American’s and US embassies.

The lie that was told to the American public (and by extension the world) by the Trump administration is that Soleimani was an imminent threat and was planning terror missions targeting American’s, US soldiers, and US embassies, and in order to thwart his plans the US had to act quickly and assassinate Iran’s top military official.  During President Trump’s speech to the nation on Wednesday he accused Soleimani of directing recent attacks against US personnel in Iraq which injured four and killed one American.

In an interview with Fox News that aired on Thursday, Pompeo said

“There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani,”

He went on to say,

“we don’t know precisely when, and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”

Maybe it’s just me, but without having any specifics whatsoever Pompeo’s statements do not make Soleimani sound like a “real” threat, if anything this solidifies the notion that the White House used a lie that lacks any evidential backing to bring us inches away from war with a nuclear regional power.

Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi called the assassination of Soleimani and al-Muhandis an act of aggression against Iraq and the Iraqi people, and a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and stated it was a dangerous escalation. Since then US troops have been asked to leave Iraq but the request has fallen on deaf ears. Iraq does not want to become a battlefield for war between the United States and Iran.

Lt. General Soleimani was an instrumental figure in the fight against Daesh in Syria and Iraq and saved countless Christian and Muslim lives by thwarting missions that put their civilian lives in danger. However, as is the case in many of Washington’s manufactured pretexts used to justify unwarranted wars and invasions, heroes are vilified and terrorists (along with their sponsors) are revered.

It’s particularly interesting to see ISIS, Israel, and the United States on the same side when it comes to Soleimani’s death. A weekly ISIS newspaper called al-Naba praised the assassination and called it “divine intervention” “an act of God” and stated that Soleimani’s death will assist their efforts to regroup in Iraq. It’s blatantly obvious that ISIS saw him as a deterrent while Washington painted him to be the “number one terrorist”. This further illustrates how Washington’s alleged “war on terror” is nothing more than an excuse to invade countries and control their natural resources all while bolding Israel.

The United States has essentially been at war with Iran since the US-backed Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 and has engaged in acts of war against Iran through economic sanctions and other means throughout the years.

In 2018, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstated crippling sanctions under its maximum pressure campaign. After waiting a year for the United States to come back to the nuclear deal or negotiate new terms, or at the bare minimum for the European nations that are signatories on the deal to offer sanctions relief to no avail, Iran started scaling back its commitments under the nuclear deal every sixty days.

Clearly the current administration does not intend to come back to the JCPOA, nor do they intend on lifting harsh sanctions, nor do they want to negotiate changes to the existing deal or propose a new nuclear deal till the JCPOA expires.

In response to Soleimani’s assassination, Iran fired 15 ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases which housed not only Iraqi but US soldiers as well, one military base was specifically targeted because that’s where the attack against Soleimani was initiated. US officials and Pentagon officials believe that Iran deliberately avoided incurring any loss of life. Iran’s intention was not to kill American’s but instead to show its target accuracy, and Washington’s inability to protect their bases and that US defense and interception systems are not as effective as they boast, also that Iran is willing to take measured and calculated retaliation when it deems necessary.

De-escalation soon followed with neither side interested in further military action, President Trump opted for more harsh sanctions and called for NATO to step up their involvement in the region.

Iran has claimed responsibility for the tragic unintentional downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane which took the lives of 176 civilians aboard. A series of unfortunate events led to this grave human error which was due to heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.

Since this admission, protestors have taken to the streets to demand that President Hassan Rouhani step down, without delay President Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu publicly stated their support for the protestors.

Washington and Tel Aviv’s ultimate goal remains regime change, whether it’s done internally or externally, ousting the current Iranian administration and installing a puppet leader is of top priority. Iran wants to limit US presence in the region and stands in the way of US expansion, hegemony, and control of resources. Iran’s opposition to the Israeli occupation of Palestine is another reason why the US has incessantly vilified Iran on the global stage and labelled them as their number one enemy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist/analyst.

Featured image is from Iranwire.com

Like the crucial steps toward public acceptance preceding the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was aimed at building popular support for war on Iran. Not only the justification, but the assassination itself were part of a broader strategy to grease the skids into war.

The Soleimani ploy has apparently failed, however, thanks to the carefully prepared Iranian response, which did not provoke Donald Trump to raise the stakes further. At least not yet.

The fingerprints of Pompeo are all over this provocation to war. In a striking parallel to the deception that accompanied the Gulf of Tonkin crisis in 1964—in which the American public was told about an attack on a U.S. ship that never happened, precipitating the Vietnam War—Pompeo and his allies carried out a complex deception in regard to the Soleimani hit. They claimed they had to kill the second most popular leader of Iran with no advance notice to Congress because the Iranian general was planning a massive attack that put the country in “imminent” danger. Trump officials have so far not provided any evidence publicly to back up this version of events. In fact, when briefed by DoD officials Wednesday, Democrats complained about the lack of hard evidence presented, leaving them unconvinced there was an imminent threat. Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY., said the briefing was “less than satisfying.”

The deception accompanying Soleimani’s killing was just the latest in a much longer string of efforts by Pompeo that began in September  2018.  That’s when Pompeo and then-National Security Advisor John Bolton established the basic propaganda line that was used to sell the Soleimani assassination. They claimed that a few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy and a consulate in Basra were evidence of an effort by Tehran to kill or injure U.S. diplomats. Bolton then demanded the Pentagon come up with retaliatory options if any Americans were harmed by any action of an Iranian “proxy,” Pompeo issued a public threat to attack Iran over the incidents.

But in fact those rockets landed a kilometer away from the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone where all foreign embassies are located, and that the one that fell near the Basra airport’s outer perimeter was nowhere near the U.S. consulate. And they were fired the same night that anti-Iran rioters were setting fire to the Iranian consulate in Basra and shutting down the country’s only seaport, and at the same time Sadrist protesters were rallying against the Iraqi government at the entrance to the Green Zone in sympathy with the anti-Iran protests.

In May 2019, Bolton claimed new “escalatory indications and warnings” of a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East and vowed, “[A]ny attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”  He and Pompeo leaked to major news outlets that there was intelligence about Iran ordering militia allies in the region to “target” Americans. But other officials who had seen the intelligence told the Wall Street Journal that Tehran sent its allies a directive telling them to prepare for possible attack by the United States.

The Bolton-Pompeo effort to lure Trump into a war with Iran faltered when the president twice refused their advice to retaliate militarily over the shoot-down of a U.S. drone and the drone attack on a key Saudi oil facility.  Bolton got fired in September, but Pompeo continued what they had begun. On December 13, he condemned two attacks on a Iraqi military base located near the Baghdad Airport on Dec. 7 and Dec. 9, in which two Iraqi anti-terrorist troops were injured, and then added,

“We must also use this opportunity to remind Iran’s leaders that any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response.”

But the circumstances surrounding those rocket attacks made it unclear who might have fired the two to four mortars or rockets at the Iraqi Security Forces headquarters near Baghdad Airport, wounding two Iraqi counter-terrorism personnel. Opponents of the government had just launched new protests against repression of demonstrations by lethal forces by Iraqi security forces, including anti-riot police, and Moqtada al Sadr, who had been supporting the Iraqi government, but had just started to support the demonstrators. It is entirely possible that Sadrist militiamen or other opponents of the government had fired the rockets at the base in protest.

Two weeks later, on December 27, a rocket attack on the K1 Iraqi base near Kirkuk killed an American contractor, as “Operation Inherent Resolve” command confirmed.  The Trump administration immediately went into crisis mode, discussing both killing Soleimani and retaliatory strikes against Kataib Hezbollah. But the provenance of the event that triggered the fateful decisions that followed is shrouded in ambiguity. As The New York Times reported on Dec. 27, “It wasn’t clear who was responsible for the attack,” adding that the base had been threatened previously by both Iranian-backed militias and Islamic State forces.

The IS forces in the area of Kirkuk where the K1 base was located had become increasingly active in 2018 and 2019, with a rapidly growing pace of attacks, operating freely out of the rugged mountainous north and south of the city. In fact there had been more attacks by IS on government targets in Kirkuk in 2018 than anywhere else in Iraq, and it had the highest rate of growth as well.

To confirm the origins of the rockets might have taken some time, but Pompeo wasn’t interested in waiting. Instead of taking on the responsibility of investigating the incident thoroughly, the Pentagon and the command of Operation Inherent Resolve turned that responsibility over to the Iraqi Security Forces. If there was indeed an investigation that turned up information indicating that Kataib Hezbollah was responsible, it would certainly have been released publicly, but no further information on the incident has been forthcoming from either Iraqi or U.S. commands. The only specific information available has been a Reuters report from “security sources that Iraqi security forces had found a ‘launchpad’ for Katyusha rockets in ‘an abandoned vehicle near the base,’” which further deepened the mystery.

But it can be argued that Pompeo was eager for the United States to provoke a military confrontation with Iran, just as Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was eager to begin airstrikes against North Vietnamese targets in August 1964. Even though he knew there were serious doubts on the part of the U.S. commander in the Gulf of Tonkin that an American ship had been attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats on Aug. 4, McNamara did not inform President Lyndon Johnson, and went ahead with the order for retaliatory strikes that night. Similarly, Pompeo apparently led Trump to believe that there was no doubt that pro-Iranian militia forces had killed an American in Kirkuk, despite the genuine uncertainty about the provenance of the attack.

In the initial meeting with Trump to discuss retaliation for the Dec. 27 attack, Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley presented the option of assassinating Gen. Soleimani along with strikes against Kataib Hezbollah, which they were blaming for the attack. According to The New York Times, the principals suggested the “improbable” assassination option only to make the retaliatory airstrikes more palatable. But considering Pompeo’s record of pushing for a military confrontation with Iran, and everything he has said publicly since, “taking Soleimani out” was probably Pompeo’s ultimate objective.

The U.S. retaliatory strikes against the militia’s weapons storage sites and other targets on Dec. 29 were nowhere near Kirkuk. One of the strikes was against al Qaim on the Syrian border 400 kilometers away from Kirkuk and two others were in Syria. It was obvious those retaliatory strikes would provoke a response by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad that could be used to justify the assassination of Soleimani. And the response was not long in coming: thousands of angry pro-Iranian Shiite militants, many in militia uniforms, broke into the Embassy compound and set fire to three trailers near the outer wall a reception area before being ordered by militia leaders to disperse, because they had delivered the desired “message.”

That was enough to persuade Trump to support the Soleimani assassination option. Pompeo had achieved his objective of U.S. military aggression, while publicly making the obviously specious argument that it was aimed at “deterring” Iran from further military actions. No one in the national security elite, which was universally convinced that Iran would have to retaliate against the assassination, took Pompeo’s argument seriously.

Iran is too clever, however, to allow Pompeo to so easily maneuver it into a confrontation that would serve the interests of American hawks and Israel. Iran has its own much more complex political-military strategy for managing the problem of the Trump administration’s policy of economic and military warfare. It now appears from the results of Iran’s military retaliation Tuesday night that it has foregone any mass casualty strike in revenge for the U.S. assassination of its second most prominent official. And Trump, as yet, will not retaliate in response. Now Pompeo will have to come up with a new deception to try to provoke U.S.-Iran war.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).

Featured image is from LobeLog

Now that your city has been in flames for more than six months, your families divided, and no end to the violence is in sight, I have decided to write this short essay, in the form of an open letter, to the young people of Hong Kong.

First of all, I want to ask: Why?

Why all this smoke and fire, wrath and violence? Were your lives, before the so-called “protests”, or “riots”, really so dismal?

You have been living in one of the richest cities on earth. Even according to Western evaluations, Hong Kong has one of the highest “freedom indexes”, higher than that of most of Western countries.

Water that comes from your taps is clean, the Internet is extremely fast, public transportation is cheap and one of the best in the world. You can enjoy an exciting cultural life, as well as great public spaces constructed along your impressive coasts.

Naturally, Hong Kong is not a perfect place, as there are no perfect places on this planet.

Your housing is some of the most expensive in the world. Job opportunities for college graduates are not really excellent. Some cities on Mainland China are now more exciting places to live, to create and to dream, than ‘good old’ Hong Kong. But still, it is a fascinating, solid city, with its own culture, mindset and complex history. And in many ways, it is a beautiful city; beautiful and unique.

So, why? What happened? Why suddenly such anger, and such frustration?

Should we talk? Please let’s.

*

I have worked in around 160 countries and territories, on all continents. I have written about, and I have filmed many wars and conflicts. I have been covering revolutions and rebellions, but also terrible riots ignited by Western countries. You probably have heard about the so-called “Color Revolutions”, or the “Arab Spring”.

I have witnessed, first hand, the fate of countries that have been occupied and then thoroughly destroyed by the United States and NATO: Afghanistan and Syria, Iraq and Colombia, to name just a few. I have seen millions of ruined lives in nations where the West overthrew left-wing governments, and then injected fascism: places like Indonesia (1965), and Chile (1973). Now there is nothing left of Indonesia; it’s nature is thoroughly ruined and the great majority lives in misery. In Chile, people have stood up, and are proudly fighting and dying for socialism which was stolen from them by Western governments and corporations.

I have lived and worked all over the African continent, the most devastated part of the world, colonized and terrorized first by Europe, and later by the United States, for many centuries.

In Hong Kong, I see you waving flags of the United States. You want that country to “save you from China” (from your own nation, in essence). I have read a translation of your school curriculum. It smears China, and it glorifies the West. Were you told, ever, that in the name of that flag, consisting of the stars and stripes, tens of millions of people, worldwide, were murdered, democracies were raped, and freedom of expression horrendously oppressed? Or are you only reading what is brought to you by Reuters and other Western press agencies?

When waving the U.K. flags, nostalgically recalling your British masters and their rule over Hong Kong, do you even think about some of the most monstrous crimes committed in the history of humankind? On all continents of the world, the British Empire murdered, humiliated, violated and plundered; hundreds of millions of people. Human beings were reduced to slaves. Their lives, identities were reduced to nothing.

Were you told this? Do you realize it? When you wave these flags, when your leaders are taking bribes from the U.S. and the E.U. establishment, do you ever think what kind of money you are touching? Do you ever consider that this money is soaked in blood?

I saw several of you demanding “independence from China”. I even witnessed some of you calling China a “terrorist” state.

Have you ever, seriously, compared the Chinese political system to that, so-called, “democracy” of the West?

Let me give you a simple quiz: In the last decades, how many countries have been attacked by China, and how many by the West? Just do a simple calculation, please. It is so simple; so clear. How many countries have been bombed to the ground, and thoroughly ruined by China, and how many by the West?

And democracy? In China, the government listens to its people. In reality, democracy means nothing more than the direct translation from Greek – rule of the people. In PRC, the government is working to improve the lives of its citizens, while building a global infrastructure for all (BRC). Now, look at the West: most of the citizens in North America and Europe hate their system, but cannot get rid of it. Some of you regularly travel to the West: don’t you hear what the people are saying there?

In the last two decades, China has lifted up hundreds of millions out of poverty. In the West, the governments have buried billions of people in misery in all their colonies. Despite of the terrible plunder of the world, tens of millions are destitute at home, in both North America and Europe.

Despite of the not too high GDP per capita, China has almost no misery, while tens of millions of the U.S. citizens are living in poverty. There are many more prisoners (per capita) in the U.S. prisons, than in the Chinese ones.

Many U.S. prisons are now privatized: it is a big business. The more that are held behind bars, the bigger the profit!

Is this a system in which you’d want to live? Is it, really?

I know the West very well. And I know China. These days, in Hong Kong, some of you are waving Western flags, while insulting Beijing.

The West has the most powerful propaganda on earth. It has the ability to twist everything; to call black – white, and vice versa.

But frankly, it is Beijing, which has the ability and desire to help solve the problems of Hong Kong.

Do you really think that Washington, London or Berlin are genuinely interested in helping your city? I am convinced that they only want to break China, and to continue ruling over the world.

To conclude this letter, let me say what has to be said: After speaking to people that are now angrily waving black banners, as well as U.S. and U.K. flags, I realized that they know very little about the state of the world. And, they do not want to listen to different points of view. When confronted intellectually, they become violent.

That is not a democratic approach; not at all.

I suggest we talk. Publicly. Let us debate the very definitions of democracy. Let us discuss who has done more harm to the world: China or the West? I am ready, anytime.

If the leaders of Hong Kong riots, or “protests” are confident that they are correct, let us face each other, in front of microphones and cameras.

I love your city. I love Hong Kong. I love China. And I strongly believe that China and Hong Kong are one beautiful, inseparable entity.

I am ready to give my best, proving that point.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was first published by China Daily Hong Kong.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative”,“China and Ecological Civilization”with John B. Cobb, Jr., “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and Latin America, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website, his Twitter and his Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Three years into the presidential administration of Donald Trump, one might ask if he has kept his commitment to ‘Make America Great Again’. These four words, comprising his 2016 campaign slogan, are based on the false premise that the United States was ever ‘great’, which can be defined as “of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.” We will look at a few facts.

• The early colonists exploited the Native Americans in savage ways. This resulted in one of the largest genocides in world history, and the oppression of the descendants of those who survived continues to this day.
• The ‘founding fathers’ created a government wherein only rich, white, male landowners could vote.
• The U.S. grew in prosperity by sending emissaries to Africa and kidnapping the indigenous men, women and children of countries there, bringing them across the ocean in conditions not fit for a dog, and forcing them to work long hours with little pay, buying and selling them like livestock, and savagely punishing them for the smallest infractions.
• Once slavery was abolished, savage discrimination against people of African descent continued. Lynchings, for such ‘crimes’ as talking to a white woman, were common through the 1950s. Today, people of African descent are routinely killed by white police officers for such ‘crimes’ as walking while Black, driving while Black and shopping while Black. Additionally, whites often call the police to report people of African descent who are trying to enter their own homes, have a picnic in a public park, or who are committing other such heinous crimes.
• The only nation to ever use nuclear weapons is the United States. As World War II drew to a close and Japan was on the verge of surrender, the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities that had no military or strategic importance. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people died horrific deaths. And today, U. S. politicians have the temerity to believe they can determine which countries can and cannot have nuclear weapons.
• During WWII, U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were arrested and placed in concentration camps. Many lost their homes and businesses. Government officials often refused to issue birth certificates for children born to these citizens. They were kept in dismal conditions for years.
• The U.S. has been at war for at least 223 of its 240-year history. Just since the end of WWII, it has invaded or otherwise destabilized at least 35 other nations, and caused the deaths of at least 20,000,000 people. Today, despite the Iraqi Parliament vote that the U.S. leave the country, U.S. spokespeople have said they have no intention of doing so.
• The U.S. incarcerates more of its citizens per capita than any other nation, many of them in for-profit prisons. Six hundred, fifty-five of every 100,000 citizens in the U.S. is incarcerated.
• In its attempt to stop immigration from Central and South America, the U.S. is now arresting individuals and families at the Mexican border, separating children from their parents and keeping them in cages. Reports of abuse are high, and extreme overcrowding is the norm.
• Government officials have worked hard to keep Muslims from entering the country, and much of their military violence is committed against mainly-Muslim nations that have in no way harmed or threatened the U.S.
• The U.S. has very recently assassinated a top military leader of another nation. One can only imagine the U.S. response if a U.S. military leader were to be assassinated by a foreign nation.
• The U.S. uses economic sanctions to force ‘regime change’ in countries whose governments it doesn’t like. During sanctions against Iraq, an estimated 500,000 innocent children died because of them. The Secretary of State at that time, Madeleine Albright, when asked about this, said that those deaths were worth it, because they helped achieve U.S. geo-political goals.
• The U.S. has sanctioned Cuba for nearly 70 years, with a brief, partial respite during part of the administration of Barack Obama, without succeeding in the goal of ‘regime change’. But unlike current sanctions against Iran, the U.S. hasn’t threatened other nations with sanctions if they continue to trade with Cuba.
• The U.S. governs not according to the will of the people, but according to the dictates of lobby groups and financial donors. For example, while the majority of U.S. citizens, according to every reputable poll on the topic, supports reasonable gun control, Congress will not even consider any such legislation, not wanting to risk losing contributions from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Also, despite the fact that the United Nations has issued more resolutions critical of the Israeli occupation of Palestine than it has against any other nation for any reason, the U.S. continues to give that prosperous, apartheid nation more money in foreign aid than it gives to any other nation, not wanting to offend wealthy pro-Israel lobby groups. And under Trump, U.S. aid to U.N. departments that assist the suffering Palestinians has been eliminated.
• In a democracy, one assumes that a person who gains the most votes would win the office for which he or she is running. Not so in the U.S.; in 2000, Vice President Al Gore won 500,000 more votes than Texas Governor George Bush, but Bush became president. In 2016, the corrupt former First Lady, New York senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won nearly 3,000,000 more votes than Donald Trump, but it is Trump who ascended to the presidency.
• In order to run for national office with any chance of victory, a candidate must have access to millions of dollars. Candidates often finance their own campaigns. This prevents countless honest, qualified people from seeking office, thus enabling those who only wish to further enrich themselves and their associates to be elected. There are few exceptions to this unwritten rule.
• Government officials work hard to increase difficulties for impoverished minorities to vote, by limiting the number of polling places in poor communities, and demanding forms of identification that many of the U.S.’s poorer citizens don’t have.

Where is the greatness in any of this? How can anyone look at the dismal record of the U.S. and say with a straight face that this is a model democracy?

No, Donald Trump has not made America great; he has simply perpetuated its inherent ugliness.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from FAIR

International relations is typified by its vagueness of definition and its shallowness of justification. Be it protecting citizens of a state in another, launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent what another state might do, or simply understanding the application of a treaty provision, justifications can prove uneven and at odds.

The pre-emptive jerk behind the killing of Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force was one such occasion.  (It transpires that there was another effort, failed as it turned out, against the Quds commander Abdul Reza Shahla’i.)  The ingredients behind the drone strike were supposedly clear: the now vanquished leader of the Quds operational arm was planning attacks on US soldiers and interests.  In any case, he had killed many US personnel before.  The attack could therefore be seen as an adventurous, and advanced reading, of self-defence, billed by the legal fraternity as “anticipatory self-defence”. 

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter qualifies the use of force against another state by imposing two conditions.  There must be authorisation by the Security Council to use force to maintain or restore international peace and security.  The second arm of the provision legitimises the use of force where a state is exercising its recognised right to individual or collective self-defence. But the boundaries of the latter are often unclear; they include “preventive” military action and “pre-emptive” military action, with the former focused on targeting the enemy’s acquisition of a capacity to attack, the latter focusing on foiling an imminent enemy attack.

Both the United States and Iran duly resorted to Article 51 letters in light of Soleimani’s killing.  US Ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, claimed that the strike took place as a response to an “escalating series of armed attacks in recent months” by Iran and its proxies on US personnel and interests in the Middle East “in order to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against the United States or US interests”.  The addition purpose of the attack was to “degrade the Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force-supported militias’ ability to conduct attacks.” 

Iranian Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi obliged with a counter letter to the UN on Wednesday justifying its January 8 actions in retaliation against a US airbase in Iraq for the killing of Soleimani.  The retaliatory strikes were deemed “measured and proportionate”, “precise and targeted”, and left “no collateral damage to civilians and civilian assets in the area.” 

For all the padding offered, the Soleimani killing could be considered a legacy of a tenuous, and precarious reading of self-defence offered by the United States since 2001.  US policy makers have done their obfuscating bit to compound the sheer vagueness of anticipatory self-defence since President George W. Bush occupied the White House.  The US National Security Strategy of 2002, followed by its 2006 variant, showed the sloppiness that comes with imperial overconfidence in the pursuit of enemies.  Pre-emption and prevention lose their distinct forms when the drafters search for legitimate uses of force against a shady enemy that prefers to play by different rules.

NSS 2002 acknowledges that centuries of international law “recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.”  But the scope is given a good widening.  “The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.  The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.”

Embracing such a broad reading of pre-emption was conditioned by “the capabilities and objectivities of today’s adversaries.  Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means.”  So it goes: the enemy obliges us to adjust, alter and repudiate conventions.  Flying civilian planes into the Twin Towers in New York on September 11, 2001 constituted such an unconventional manner of attack. 

The 2006 National Security Strategy stated unequivocally that “the place of pre-emption in our national security strategy remains the same” though conceding that “no country should ever use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression.”  Using such force would take place after “weighing the consequences of our actions.   The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.”  Four years later, under the Obama administration, the position had not much improved, and the muddle remained.

The killing of a senior Iranian commander in circumstances that could hardly be seen as a matter of combat revived that hoary old chestnut of imminent threat.  When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was pressed about the nature of such imminence in a press conference, the old tangle of interpretations became manifest.  “Mr. Secretary,” came one question, “the administration said this strike was based on an imminent threat, but this morning you said we didn’t know precisely when and we didn’t know precisely where.  That’s not the definition of ‘imminent’.” 

Pompeo was not exactly helpful, resorting to the classic rhetorical device of circularity.  “We had specific information on an imminent threat, and those threats included attacks on US embassies.  Period.  Full stop.”  He conceded to not knowing, with exact precision, “which day it would’ve have been executed.  I don’t know exactly which minute.”  But the evidence was sound enough: Soleimani “was plotting a broad, large-scale attack against American interests.  And those attacks were imminent.”

Each time he was confronted with a question on clarification, Pompeo dissembled.  In not taking any action to stall the efforts of Soleimani, the Trump administration “would have been culpably negligent” in not recommending the president to “take his action”.

President Donald Trump, for his part, has given the impression of justified clarity.  “I can reveal,” he told Fox News, “that I believe it would have been four embassies.”  Before a campaign rally in Ohio on Thursday, he suggested that Soleimani had been “actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad.”  

None of this really matters in the final analysis.  Uses of force must be justified after the fact, and the tradition of big power statecraft shows that the more formidable a power, the more likely threats against it will be magnified.  The attack on Soleimani had as much to do with inflated claims of US security as it did with chronic insecurity.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

If the grand plan to ‘decarbonise the planet’ was based upon a human scale renewable energy supply and de-corporatised, decentralised, small scale environmentally friendly distribution patterns – I would have no argument with the initiators. On the contrary, I would applaud such a rare demonstration of holistic thinking.

But the reality is very, very different. In fact it could not be more opposite. The plan being put into effect actually constitutes not a slowing down – but a significant expansion of the existing highly centralised finite energy mining and distribution apparatus, backed by a rampant corporatocracy, devious propaganda and unashamed political spin.

Emerging evidence increasingly points to deliberate actions being engaged in to bring about the very conditions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims to be trying to prevent. This United Nation’s organisation and its followers, appear to be intent upon expanding the volume of anthropogenic pollutants being released into the atmosphere, rather than reducing them. 

The IPCC “CO2 causes global warming” position, adopted by a plethora of industries and institutions determined to benefit from its decree, has already been exposed as a fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth. Making CO2 into ‘the devil in our midst’ is an overtly false trail which I have dealt with in an earlier article.[1]

Observe carefully and you will notice that the great majority of political pronouncements made by leading protagonists of ‘cabal politics’ are subsequently reversed in the actions that follow. Promises of peace are followed-up by acts of war; promises of prosperity for all are followed by a widening of the poverty gap. Claims of trying to stabilize the planet’s climate are followed by acts of wilful destabilisation – and so on.

This ‘reversal of truth’ formula is the trick used by power seeking despots who have adopted dark-side practices designed to suppress – and quite literally reverse – peoples natural propensity for humanitarian expressions of warmth and mutual respect. Instead, turning those qualities into cold and calculating acts of division.

Since our world is currently in the grip of this ‘cabal agenda’ whose goals are not mutable nor flexible, attempts are being made to make it appear that every serious geological/environmental upheaval manifesting on this planet – is happening due to (the phony) ‘global warming’. 

The continuous repetition of this mantra by mainstream media is essential for the unquestioned roll-out of the corporate and banker backed ‘Green New Deal/Zero Carbon’ plan (scam) – which is termed ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ by the industry that backs it. This is because it promises vast riches to the corporations contracted to build and implement the impossibly large scale infrastructural requirements deemed necessary to shift the world from an almost 100% fossil fuel dependence to a close to 100% dependence on renewable energy.   

The heavy dependence upon fossil fuel energies needed in order to make possible this (theoretical) shift, would, in practice, involve an unparalleled asset stripping march across the length and breadth of the planet. Such a situation makes a mockery of the hugely over-hyped UN term ‘sustainability’. 

The ‘zero carbon’ cabal, for example, must make it appear that the disastrous fires which have ravaged South East Australia and a significant part of California, are the result of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ and, of course, could not possibly have anything to do with any ‘conspiratorial’ ulterior motives. 

Which leads us to ask the following question: just who might benefit from the fact that whole communities have been wiped-out and large forests burned to ashes in these countries? 

A recent expose of the Australian position shows successive governments destroying the vital South East Australian river systems by deliberately siphoning-off huge volumes of river water and hoarding it in a large number of specially constructed reservoirs. Not for strategic use in irrigating the surrounding countryside in times of drought, but to sell-off to the highest bidder – including foreign interests – hugely enriching the vendors. 

A viciously inhuman policy which includes grossly negligent management of the Australian bush, in which millions of highly flammable gum trees have been allowed to over mature, presenting the perfect fuel for the rapid spreading of extremely dense fires. 

It is believed that the real government ambition behind this appalling act of ecocide is to pave the way for the establishment of a super-sized control grid, construction of 5G microwave powered  ‘smart cities’ and a new high speed railway link between capital cities. All recognised Agenda 2030/Green New Deal ambitions. 

I established in earlier articles that Green New Deal is a key part of the New World Order’s strategic march to power. It is founded on the fictitious ‘greenhouse effect’ science of the IPCC/United Nations; and on the insanely bizarre plan to achieve an end to the use of fossil fuels (‘zero carbon’) by mining and burning vast volumes of oil, coal and gas (fossil fuels) in order to achieve this end! 

Looking at steel alone, the embedded energy (fossil fuel) requirement involved in the construction of the tens of thousands steel hungry giant wind farms that would be needed to satisfy the Green New Deal ‘zero carbon’ scam – would lead to a terrible massacre of the ecology of the planet. 

Quite obviously, chasing this monstrous Zero Carbon ‘Industrial Revolution’ (oxymoron) ambition will be the harbinger of severe climactic reactions. Quantum physics has already revealed the intimate interrelatedness and interactions that occur between man’s global activities and Gaia’s subtle levels of equilibrium and balance. The sheer scale of the Green New Deal undertaking will involve unavoidable destabilisation of all aspects of planetary life, including that of the biosphere.

Under such a regime one can expect to see the build-up of a wide variety of intense environmental and geological upheavals, coupled to those already set in motion due to other nefarious anti-life programmes like the deadly HAARP ionospheric heaters, highly toxic global atmospheric aerosol geoengineering activities and the ubiquitous build-up of WiFi electronic smog. These are, of course, coupled with other military/space attack and defence programmes manifest by a long running US determination to exert its hegemonic ambitions at will. 

Weather, already largely under the manipulative control of the US military, will become even more a victim of political/corporate attempts to carve up the planet for their own deeply narcissistic ends.

However, all forms of geological and atmospheric disruption will be blamed on ‘global warming/climate change’ with a stupefied public clinging to the quite demonic notion that ‘zero carbon’ – achieved at the cost of planetary ecocide – will finally put everything right! 

This insider created ‘planetary climate emergency’ – now with the backing of almost the entire global corporate cabal elite and a posse of high flying multi billionaires to boot – is operating under the Green New Deal moniker. While Green New Deal’s professionally trained propaganda front-runners have been given the title ‘Extinction Rebellion’, so as to give the impression of being cool anti-government rebels. The UK Green Party has also willingly been brought into the fold, like so many errant sheep searching for a safe pen to keep them out of trouble. 

Under this infamous Green New Deal, governments and their cohorts are further capitalising on spurious and fraudulent planetary ‘carbon trading’ schemes. Schemes that fill the coffers of already bloated insider wheeler-dealers whose insatiable appetites lead them to rip-off the needy for the further aggrandisement of their uncontrolled narcissistic cravings. Carbon trading has nothing to do with climate stabilisation, it is just another ‘green dressing’ for pure neocolonial exploitation.

Where the insanity on display reaches its most cruel zenith, is in the astounding degree of top-down deception that is being perpetrated on humanity. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” has never been a more apt declaration. 

Perhaps the outstanding slight of hand performed by these trickster’s highly organised disinformation campaign – is the use of the word ‘Green’ to describe the materialistic rape of our blessed Earth. 

All those who grasp the true meaning of the word Green, used as a synonym for environmentally friendly ecological management systems that support localised human scale communities and benign land practices, must now speak-out and vigorously decry this fake-green wholescale evisceration of the essential life support system of the planet. Let us not allow ourselves the misplaced luxury of thinking that at some point all this craziness is just going to magically dissolve away. It is not. 

Those who recognise themselves as ‘Real Greens’ must now unite in overcoming the subversive fake-green interlopers, whose activities are carried-out with seemingly cool disdain – while boasting an unquestioning commitment to the six defining flags of green deception: ‘Sustainable Development’, ‘Agenda 2030’, ‘Green New Deal’, ‘Climate Emergency’ and ‘Extinction Rebellion.’ 

May all those capable of thinking and acting responsibly, now come together to stand resolutely for actions that work with – not against – nature.  Let us also rise up as one in support of the ever threatened sanctity of humanity, remembering that everything of value starts with Reverence for Life. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc. 

Julian Rose is author of  ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through,   now available from independent book stores and Amazon. See www.julianrose.info for more information. Julian is an international activist, writer, broadcaster, organic farming pioneer and actor.  In 1987 and 1998, he led a campaign that saved unpasteurized milk from being banned in the UK; and, with Jadwiga Lopata, a ‘Say No to GMO’ campaign in Poland which led to a national ban of GM seeds and plants in that country in 2006. Julian is currently campaigning to ‘Stop 5G’ WiFi.

Note

1 http://www.julianrose.info/2019/10/zero-carbon-5g-denial-and-green-fascism/ 

British universities have invested more than an estimated half a billion dollars in companies that arm Israel or support Israeli settlement infrastructure.

This revelation comes from new research by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Activists on Wednesday held an “Apartheid off Campus” day of action at universities across the UK.

The same day, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign released a publicly accessible database listing 117 out of the UK’s 150 universities, and their $580 million worth of investments in complicit firms.

Freedom of information requests by PSC show that one institution, London’s Imperial College, has more than $15 million invested in military and high technology firms that supply Israel.

About $3.8 million of this is invested in Lockheed Martin, which makes warplanes Israel has used to bomb Palestinians and Lebanon countless times.

Another $3.5 million is invested in Cisco Systems, which supplies information technology and surveillance infrastructure to Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Syria’s Golan Heights.

The database highlights some ironies. University College London has a “Centre for Ethics and Law.”

This institution’s sponsor is BAE Systems, the world’s fourth-largest arms firm.

BAE Systems has extensively documented ties to the Israeli war industry, with its weapons repeatedly used on Palestinian civilians.

“It is shocking that UK universities fuel Israel’s human rights abuses by investing in such companies, despite the majority holding so-called ethical investment policies,” said Huda Ammori, campaigns officer for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

King’s College London has $3 million invested in complicit firms, including Microsoft.

Our research has uncovered UK universities invest over $500mil in companies which supply and finance Israel's arms trade and illegal settlement economy.

Check out the extent of UK universities complicity here: https://t.co/SzxauBHJhH

Time to get #ApartheidOffCampus! 🇵🇸 pic.twitter.com/3xlRTRf8fi

— PSC (@PSCupdates) November 29, 2019

Campaigners say Microsoft is a complicit firm due to its multi-million dollar investment in AnyVision, an Israeli facial recognition company with a camera network deployed “deep inside the West Bank” to surveil the Palestinian population.

In effect, AnyVision is conducting human experimentation on an occupied civilian population without their consent – an activity from which it then hopes to profit.

“As a Palestinian student, I am disgusted to find out that my institution has complicit links with Israeli apartheid,” Mohammed Ali, president of King’s College London Action Palestine, said.

Ali vowed that students across the country would continue to “demand our universities abide by their ethical policies, and remove all links with companies and institutions complicit in human rights abuses.”

The PSC database is the result of more than a year’s research.

Freedom of information requests were sent to all 150 UK universities, but many refused to hand over the figures, or gave partial disclosures.

The PSC figures are based partly on those disclosures, partly on Bloomberg International’s database of holdings of major investment funds and partly on estimates.

For those universities that refused to fully disclose their investments, PSC calculated an average “complicity percentage” based on known holdings of major investment funds, and those universities’ known levels of overall investment.

Of the 44 universities that disclosed investments in response to their freedom of information requests, and from the Bloomberg database, PSC established $166 million worth of investments.

Ammori told The Electronic Intifada that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign used the same methods as climate change campaigners use in calculating fossil fuel complicity.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Students in Leeds demand divestment. (PSC/Twitter)

“Al-Qaeda terrorists operating in the north of Syria and oppressing millions of Syrians can now breathe comfortably after the United Nations Security Council extended their supply routes from their regional sponsor NATO member state Turkey for an additional Six months within its Resolution 2504.” ~ Syria News

In October 2014, Serena Shim, a US citizen and a Press TV reporter was killed in a mysterious car accident in Turkey on the border with Kobane, northern Syria. Shim had received death threats from Turkish intelligence after she had reported ISIS fighters entering Syria from Turkey inside World Food Programme trucks. The same trucks were also delivering arms and equipment to the terrorist groups inside Syria.

My experience in Syria – when entering the armed group (dominated by Nusra Front, Al Qaeda) occupied areas of Syria after liberation by the Syrian Arab Army – I found that all humanitarian aid delivered by the UN or their outreach agencies had been stockpiled by the armed groups and distributed to the fighters from within these groups. Very few civilians would receive the aid, unless they were prepared to pay extortionate prices to the terrorist/extremist groups.

When East Aleppo was liberated in December 2016, more than 5000 tonnes of UN aid were recovered from the different districts and collected together into one warehouse. Civilians testified to being starved, deprived of medical care and forced to pay very high prices in a war economy, for the most basic necessities.

Effectively “aid” went almost exclusively to the armed groups that reigned eastern Aleppo for almost five years, converted hospitals into military and detention centers and committed a multitude of war crimes against the Syrian civilians under their occupation. The “aid” became a major part of a mafia economy benefiting only the armed groups.

Dr Nabil Antaki, a gastroenterologist who remained in Aleppo during the last nine years, wrote a report in December 2016, detailing his experience of visiting the previously Nusra-front occupied areas of East Aleppo. This was his comment regarding the stockpiling of UN and other western aid agency supplies:

“I had the opportunity to visit the basement of Ibn Rushed public hospital in West Aleppo guided by the director of Aleppo Health Direction. In this basement, very large, 1000 square meter, they put some of the medicine and equipment found in clinics and hospitals of the neighborhood controlled by the terrorists. See photos. These demonstrate clearly that there was no shortage of medicine as they proclaimed, via their godfathers, asking for a humanitarian truce.”

I witnessed the same in other areas of Syria – Eastern Ghouta, Damascus, Daraa, Madaya, Zabadani etc. Award winning journalist, Eva Bartlett, described the same phenomenom when she visited Madaya where the western media, anti-Syrian government hyperbole, reached defeaning levels.

Now we have Idlib and the continued use of “humanitarian aid” as a weapon against the Syrian people and the Syrian government. Idlib is known to be entirely occupied by groups dominated by Nusra Front or Hayat Tahrir as Sham, one of their many rebrands.

From speaking to refugees from Idlib and to Syrian civilians still living in Idlib but travelling to northern Hama or other government-secured areas for work or trade – I have heard a very familiar story, the terrorists take delivery of the UN “aid”, it is stockpiled and sold at extortionate rates to the needy civilians, most can’t afford to buy it.

A recent interview I did with a refugee from Yacoubieh in Idlib, now living in Latakia, forced out of her home by the armed groups – I was told that the terrorist groups and the White Helmets receive the aid, they store it and distribute first among the fighters – civilians are secondary, if they are lucky they will receive one box of essential items that is supposed to last one month.

” According to Aline, the White Helmets were working with and for the terrorist groups. Aid received from outside was distributed first to the armed groups before meagre supplies were handed out to civilians. Aline did not see the White Helmets performing “humanitarian” activities, they were focused on further looting and the destruction of historic buildings, including the churches. “ ~ US increases funding to White Helmets who are persecuting Syrian Christians in Idlib

When the Shia Muslim villages of Kafarya and Foua were under siege in Idlib (by Ahrar al Sham and Nusra Front), the UN was noticeably lax in providing aid for the besieged and starving civilians – to the extent where the civilians wrote a letter to the UN complaining that deliveries were scarce, never contained what was most needed and that most food was perished or unusable when taking into account living conditions.

The Dutch government recently withdrew funding from the White Helmet organisation which is one of the distribution partners for the UN in Idlib. The reason given, after an in-depth investigation, was that there were no guarantees that aid and financing was not going directly to the armed groups, the majority of which are designated terrorist groups.

BBC Panorama also highlighted the diversion of British aid intended for the terrorist-linked Free Syrian Police (Idlib) to terrorist groups. This report was only aired after I had written an in depth investigation into the UK Foreign Office indirect financing of terrorist groups occupying East Aleppo prior to liberation in December 2016.

The question must be asked, what verification mechanisms are in place to ensure that aid reaches those most in need in Syria, in particular in Idlib? Can the UN guarantee that armed groups are not profiting from the delivery of aid and equipment in an area overrun by Al Qaeda which makes all manner of monitoring extremely dangerous. The UN relies hugely on compromised and terrorist-linked NGOs, such as the White Helmets, to monitor and distribute aid.

With  the ongoing Syrian/Russian military campaign in Idlib which will liberate the final province still held by Nusra Front-led armed groups, despite the recent ceasefire – the need for cross border aid will diminish dramatically with the Syrian government and Russia providing for the Syrian people as they do in more than 85% of Syria. The UN should be respecting the sovereignty of a state that has done its utmost to maintain the supply of essential services to its people despite a 9 year war and crippling economic terrorism imposed by the US Coalition, a familiar mobster bully-boy tactic designed to collectively punish the Syrian people for their resistance against the imperialist agenda in their country.

Former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, sent me this statement in response to the latest UN restoration of aid for Al Qaeda in Idlib:

“The draft resolution blocked by Russia and China completely ignores the advances the Syrian government has made in restoring its control and thus ability to deliver or channel humanitarian aid itself. Similarly the Western media totally distorts the issue. The Washington Post, for example, quotes US talking points to the effect that aid cannot reach areas like Raqqa and Deir Ez Zor. This is absolutely false. The Syrian government can without a shadow of doubt deliver aid to these areas, now under government control.

The same talking points refer to Al Rukban on the borders with Jordan and Iraq, which the US controls and which it could supply with aid at any time it chooses from its bases in Iraq.

Russia is willing to agree to a six month extension and a channelling of aid through two Turkish-controlled crossings. If the situation is as dire as claimed why is this solution not acceptable?

The UN and Western powers are oblivious to the fact that once aid crosses into Idlib it falls under the control of jihadi groups, notably the internationally prescribed Hayat Tahrir Ash Sham, who exploit it to siphon off profits for themselves and fund their operations aimed at preventing normalisation.

Those expecting the Syrian government and its supporters to acquiesce indefinitely in this abusive situation are hallucinating. If they sincerely wish for an end to humanitarian suffering in Northern Syria they will stop doing everything in their power to try to halt the advances being made by Syrian government forces and lift punitive sanctions which are compounding the suffering of ordinary Syrians throughout the country.

Those who wail only about suffering when it takes place in jihadi-controlled areas, while openly aiming to crush the Syrian economy until the people rise up against the government, need to be called out for the cynical hypocrites they are. “

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

How much longer are we accepting the tyrannical dictate of the American rulers? It gets worse by the day – and it looks like the western world’s “leaders” (sic – so sic!) are caving in ever more to the American killing machine – the European Union – and all its members heads of state, and all the Zion-Anglosaxons and Japan – no one dares standing up and shouting “NO!” – no more of your hegemonic atrocities! – But they all bend over backwards to please a criminal empire, run like the Barbarians.

Imagine, the so-called world leader invites you to a foreign country to help mediate between different factions, you accept, and when you arrive at the airport, he kills you. Then he smiles and boasts in utter satisfaction that he has given the order to kill – kill by remote control, by drone. Much worse than extra-judiciary murder, because there was never any accusation launched against you – except for lies.

That’s exactly what happens, with the beloved, brilliant and charismatic Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. And that’s what Trump’s miserable minions, like Foreign Secretary Mike Pompeo and War Minister, Mark Esper, shamelessly deny, namely that they invited him by intermediary of Iraq’s Prime Minister. Pompeo in front of a White House press briefing, cynically laughing, asked journalists – “would you believe such nonsense?” – And of course, none of the MSM journalists would dare say yes – even if they believed it. Instead they laugh congenially to express their agreement with the horrifying murderer-in-complicity in front of them, the Barbarian Sates highest diplomat, as it were. The MSM journalists are too coward to fearing risking their jobs, or losing access to the White House press-room.

Yet, that is precisely what the Prime Minister of Iraq, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, said in disbelief and awe: “Trump asked me to mediate with Iran – and then he kills my invitee.” Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi has certainly more credibility than Trump or any of his cronies, foremost US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who not too long ago told RT: “[When] I was the CIA director, we lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

General Soleimani was picked up at Bagdad airport by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Iraqi military commander and leader of the People’s Mobilization Forces. They drove off in a SUV, when US-drone missiles hit and pulverized them, along with 10 other high-ranking military from both countries.

Soleimani had diplomatic immunity – and the US knew about it. But no rule, no law and no standard of ethics is respected by Washington. A behavior very much like the one of the Barbarians. General Soleimani, who was much more than a general, he was also a great diplomat, was asked by PM Abdul-Mahdi on behalf of Trump to come to Bagdad to be part of a mediation process that Trump asked PM Abdul-Mahdi to lead, to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as between the US and Iran. This was an abjectly, cowardly ploy to assassinate Qassem Soleimani. – How deep can you sink? There are no words to describe the horrible crime.

The lie-spangled Pompeo immediately came up with a general cover-all phrase used by Washington at nauseatum, Soleimani was a terrorist and a danger to (US) national security. – Be aware – dear reader, no Irani, not General Soleimani nor anybody else, has ever threatened the US, not with words, not with weapons.

Then the Barbarian-in-chief had the audacity to threaten Iran to hit 52 of their cultural heritage sites, in case Iran dared to retaliate. But retaliate Iran did – last night, by sending some 22 missiles onto two US-Iraqi military bases. There were casualties, but no clear figures are known. Trump tweeted, “all is good”. When asked about his promised retaliation on the retaliation, Trump backtracked saying he has been told that destroying historic sites would be against the law, and he wanted to abide by the law. Can you imagine?

The next immediate act against the law, Trump barred IranianMinister of Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, from coming to the UN in New York to address the Security Council, later in the week, by simply refusing a US entry visa. This is against the UN Charter the US signed in 1947, that foreign representatives had to be given always access to the UN territory in New York (same applies to the UN in Geneva).

And where is Mr. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, when you need him? What does he have to say? – A big NOTHING. He didn’t even condemn the murder of General Soleimani. That’s what the UN has become. A worthless toothless body to do the bidding of the Barbarian Empire. What a sad legacy.

Shouldn’t there come the moment when the majority of UN member states – call for a vote to expulse the US from the United Nations – and start from scratch – with a new revamped, leaner and more efficient UN that would act according to its original charter seeking and mediating for peace in the world? There is a majority of more than 120 unaligned states that stand behind countries which are harassed, oppressed, sanctioned by the US – like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea…. Why not stand up in unison and make the UN what its charter tells it to be? – And that without the Barbarian tyrant.

There are lots of countries that have drones and precision-target technologies, and not all are friends with the Barbarian State. Imagine, somebody, some country, sends a drone to extinguish Pompeo. Or god forbid, the Chief Barbarian himself. That would unleash an extreme furor – maybe a nuclear holocaust – annihilating the world as we know it. End of civilization. Perhaps good riddens.

We may deserve it. As we seem to be unable to reign in what rightly is called by some “The Great Satan” – or simply and more down to earth, the Barbarians. We haven’t seen them for hundreds of years. But they are back, the shameless, ruthless, lawless Barbarians in the form and shape of the US of A – exerting a last attempt to clamp down on civilization with their bleeding, weakening, tentacles.

Why would anyone in this world still want to have relations with the Barbarian empire? – Never mind (profit) business deals with the US. They can be cut off and replaced by new relations, the rebuilding of natural relations with Russia and the Eurasian Continent, including China. It will happen naturally, sooner or later. Isolate the Barbarians and let them rot in their own corrupt swamp.  Maybe they will recover and become a decent nation again – one that can be a partner and respected. It may not happen tomorrow, but in a foreseeable future it may. Everybody has a conscience, even if in most of the western culture its reduced to a tiny flame or only some flickering amber. But it can be awakened.

Brief Update of the Barbarian Empire’s Behavior

Iraq wants to reestablish national sovereignty, asking all foreign troops to leave the country– The Iraqi Parliament has by majority decided to take back Iraq’s sovereignty and that US and foreign troops must leave the country. As a consequence, on 6 January an apparently unsigned letter from Brig. Gen. William Seely III, the Marine Corps officer commandeering the US coalition against ISIS (sic), addressed to Mr. Abdul Amir, Deputy Director, Joint Operation Bagdad, Iraqi Ministry of Defense, saying that the US is ready to withdraw her troops. This was immediately contradicted by the White House, as well as the Pentagon, calling it a confusion, a mistake, that the US has no intention of withdrawing any troops. “We will stay”.

The US has currently some 5,200 troops stationed in Iraq. The UK, some 400. That’s how much an ally’s wishes for recuperating national sovereignty is honored. Barbarians know no respect, no ethics, no laws – Barbarians are sledgehammer people.

Several European Countries have decided to withdraw their troops, respect Iraq’s decision and leave Iraq and the Region. Only the UK, the closest Barbarian ally, has not decided yet and will leave her 400 troops in Iraq, alongside the US troops. How typical!

Tokyo Summer Olympics– On another account of Barbarism, the US decided that Russia is not to participate in this year’s Summer Olympics in Tokyo, Japan. Under false pretexts of doping, when according to history records, available on internet, the US is by far the nation with most proven doping disqualifications, worldwide. And the rest of the world, instead of boycotting the US and letting Russia compete – is silent. Cowards! Miserable cowards.

Baseball Caribbean Series in Puerto Rica in February 2020– The Barbarians are attempting – and probably succeeding – preventing Cuba from participating in the Caribbean Series of the Baseball Professional Confederation, in February in Puerto Rico. No reason given. Just visa complications.

The Ukrainian Airline Crash – BBC’s immediate reaction: The Russians did it – The Russians did it!  – BBC announced in the morning of 9 January, that there was a high possibility that the Ukrainian passenger plane that crashed in the early morning hours of 3 January near Tehran airport, shortly after take-off, was shot down by a Russian missile. All passengers and crew, 176 people, died in the crash. There is not a shred of evidence, or even suspicion that a Russian missile was close to the place of accident. But the Barbarians live off lies and crimes in impunity.

Admission by IRGC– In the meantime, however, the Iranian Revolutionary Forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), admitted having shot down the Ukrainian airliner by mistake, taking it as a foreign object, especially so close to Tehran airport. Why would they only know admit the responsibility for the disaster? – Because apparently it took the IRGC 48 hours to clarify among themselves, the IRGC is afairly autonomous branch of the Iranian Armed Forces, what happened, before even informing the Government. That’s why the Government did not come forward earlier with the truth. They didn’t know.

It is also still not clear why the Iranian / Tehran airport authorities allowed any planes to take off in this heated, tense situation of Iranian missiles being shot at two US bases in Iraq, with a high probability of an exchange of missiles – which miraculously did not happen, because Trump’s advisers told him to back off in order to avoid a major conflict or war.

People in the streets of Tehran and major Iranian cities are protesting against their government’s delayed admission of responsibility. But the Government, President Rouhani, has said that there will be a thorough investigation of the case, and that those responsible will be held accountable. He also apologized to the victims’ families and said they will be compensated.  While not refuting Iranian responsibility for the accident, Rouhani pointed to the highly fragile and delicate pressure situation in a conflict brought about by the United States.

New sanctions on Iran– The Master Barbarian Trump says new sanctions will be added to those already existing, sanctions that will hurt even more – and, yes, he says, like the Good Father of Mother Earth talking to his children, it’s all up to the Iranians, they can behave like a good nation behaves, or they will be punished with sanctions. And they will hurt. It’s entirely up to them.No description of what the appropriate behavior for the Barbarians would involve.

Can you believe this? – If you wouldn’t witness such aberrant BS with your own eyes and ears, it would be truly unbelievable, that the world is run by such un-people, well, Barbarians – and, yes, again – the docile people of this globe accept it, say nothing, keep silent. Thousands of people may die again from the sanctions – confiscated medical equipment, medication, food – imposed on Iran, as did in Venezuela – 40,000 according to a recent study by the Washington thinktank, CEPR – only because Iran has backbone, and dares not to kneel in front of the Barbarian king to do his bidding.

This kind of backbone you could not expect from the Europeans and all those neolib-governments in Latin America, like in Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and now against all odds, the new US-installed “interim” racist-fascist government in Bolivia. They would lay down and kiss the chief Barbarian’s feet, to put it politely.

And again, the world looks on in insanity and in silence.

This western world must fall.

Barbarism, i.e. neoliberalism – already tending towards fascism – must be eradicated fast, if humanity is to be saved.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

An earlier version of this article was first published by the New Eastern Outlook.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press, TeleSUR; The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

On August 31, 2010, Obama declared an end to Washington’s combat mission in Iraq, saying:

“Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility (sic).” 

Ignored was Washington’s rape and destruction of the country. Pre-1990 Iraq no longer exists, its population victimized by decades of US aggression, genocidal sanctions, a plague of preventable diseases, ecocide, impoverishment, and deprivation.

US forces Obama withdrew from Iraq were returned in June 2014, invited by its US-installed puppet regime to combat ISIS jihadists deployed to the country by the Pentagon to provide a pretext for resumed US occupation — where things stand today.

ISIS and likeminded terrorists exist where the US wants them used as proxy fighters, supported by Pentagon terror-bombing.

In 2017, Pentagon aerial attacks on Mosul, Iraq turned most of the city to rubble, massacring tens of thousands of its residents — on the phony pretext of combatting ISIS the US supports.

Civilians able to escape the carnage became displaced refuges, left largely on their own, their homes, possessions, and futures destroyed by US-supported ISIS and Pentagon aggression.

In the wake of the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU commander Muhandis, Iraqi legislation called for expelling US forces from the country, supported by PM Mahdi.

Last fall, Iraqi security expert Hafez al-Basharah said the Trump regime shifted thousands of ISIS jihadists from Syria to Iraq to solidify the US grip on the country.

On Sunday, he said the same thing is happening again, the US plotting to free ISIS prisoners in Iraq to attack Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf, adding:

“Washington is pursuing different plots after failure of several of its plans in the region and its inability to prevent the approval of the plan to expel the American forces by the Iraqi parliament.”

Reintroducing an ISIS threat in Iraq is all about using it as a pretext for continued US occupation, he stressed.

Separately, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Middle East security “reached a dangerous level” because of hostile US actions.

Rouhani and Iran’s Guardian Council endorsed unanimously approved legislation that designates Pentagon forces as terrorists — the measure in response to Soleimani’s assassination.

The NYT and other Western media falsely accused Iranian security forces of using live fire against Amir Kabir University students.

Over the weekend, they were involved in chanting anti-government slogans, demanding resignation and prosecution of Iranian officials in response to the accidental downing of Ukraine Airlines Flight 752, a tragic error.

US and UK dirty hands were likely all over the protests, UK envoy to Iran Rob Macaire detained and questioned by Iranian authorities for involvement in inciting what happened.

Tehran police head Hossein Rahimi debunked false accusations of live fire on protesters, saying:

“At protests, police absolutely did not shoot because the capital’s police officers have been given orders to show restraint.”

Establishment media hostile to Iran like the NYT feature all propaganda all the time in reports about the country.

Instead of denouncing the Trump regime’s cold-blooded murder of Soleimani, they demonized him, an anti-terrorist freedom fighter, widely respected by Iranians, Iraqis, and millions of others in the region.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from American Free Press

US strikes against targets in Iraq in Syria belonging to Iranian-linked militias operating across the territory of both Middle Eastern nations directly before New Year’s marked a new low for US foreign policy in the region.

The strikes were soon followed by the assassination of senior Iranian military leader General Qasem Soleimani who headed Iran’s renowned Quds Forces.

The combined provocations have led to a proportionate – and so far effective – counterstrike by Iran aimed at US military bases in Iraq.

The US is Goading Iran, Not Defending Against It 

CNN in its article, “US strikes 5 facilities in Iraq and Syria linked to Iranian-backed militia,” it was reported that:

US forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against five facilities the Pentagon says are tied to an Iranian-backed militia blamed for a series of attacks on joint US-Iraq military facilities housing American forces.

The article would also claim:

Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman described the strikes against the group as “precision defensive strikes” that “will degrade” the group’s ability to conduct future attacks against coalition forces.

And while the US would describe the strikes as defensive in nature – in reality the US is illegally occupying Syria and is coercing the government of Iraq to accept its open-ended and unwanted occupation there.

Worse still is that the Iranian-backed militias the US struck constitute one of the most formidable forces operating in the region arrayed against terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, its various affiliates, and the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS).

The US narrative of protecting its troops – who occupy the region illegally and in direct contravention to international law – attempts to paper over continued efforts to cling to US hegemony in the Middle East and reverse its flagging fortunes – particularly in Syria where its regime war has unraveled.

Strikes on Iranian-backed militias and their senior leadership are a vain attempt to redraw the quickly changing geopolitical landscape in the Levant where Syria and its allies – particularly Russia and Iran – have come out on top.

Stabbing Iraq in the Back…

All while the US attempts to portray its actions as underwriting regional or even global security – the very nations it has carried out its attacks in have unequivocally condemned them. In Iraq – where there is at least a semblance of legitimacy to America’s ongoing occupation, the Iraqi government has described the attacks as treacherous.

The assassination of General Qasem Soleimani  was likewise condemned widely across the region.

Thus – the US has carried unilateral actions inside a nation it attempts to portray as an ally and partner – actions condemned by the Iraqi government itself.

Finally, the CNN article would point out that the recent US strikes represent an escalation between the United States and Iran – amid a wider conflict that spans the region from Syria and Lebanon, to Iraq, to the south in Yemen, and even as far as in Afghanistan where US forces have been waging war for nearly 2 decades along Iran’s eastern flank.

Within Iran itself, the US has organized ongoing efforts to destabilize the nation economically and politically aiming to either coerce Tehran or remove the government of Iran entirely.

The irony of the US claiming it is striking Iranian-backed militias in self-defense or in an attempt to combat “terrorism” is multifaceted.

The US which claims to be waging a global war on terror – has just struck the very forces serving as the front line against Al Qaeda and ISIS. Furthermore, when considering the US and its Saudi allies are Al Qaeda and ISIS’ primary state sponsors, the irony deepens.

When the nations the US claims it is protecting protest US unilateral actions – nations who are the primary benefactors of Iranian-back militias and their efforts to combat Al Qaeda and ISIS and their terrorism aimed at dividing and destroying their nations and the wider region – US foreign policy and its most recent belligerence lays fully exposed.

One must also consider that US actions serve as one of the most disruptive factors driving ongoing regional instability.

The US continues to isolate itself by doubling down on failed policies – and in the process it is resorting to increasingly dangerous and desperate tactics that threaten regional and global peace and stability. Resorting to high-level assassinations represents a rarely resorted-to measure fully illustrating the growing depths of Washington’s desperation.

For nations enduring US belligerence – the process of slowly exposing and countering US foreign policy must continue in earnest. Iran’s pinpoint missile strikes aimed at US bases in Iraq, avoiding casualties represents just such patience – a show of force reminding Washington of what could happen if hostilities widen – and a show of restraint illustrating to the rest of the world that Iran is reasonable even in the face of unreasonable provocations.

The US is already increasingly exposed and isolated. For the US which has waged large scale war across the region with diminishing returns – a handful of additional US airstrikes and assassinations will do little to diminish Iranian-backed militias or their ongoing efforts to move the region out from under decades of US hegemony, aggression, terror, division, and destruction.

For the New Year – the US gifts the Middle East with yet more violence and terror – ensuring the region, its nations, and their people labor under no delusions regarding the source of the region’s ongoing instability and violence. During the coming new year and the years to come, the process of slowly and surely uprooting US hegemony and all that it entails will continue.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Japan has banned gene-edited human embryos and international scientists are increasing the call to ban the highly uncertain and risky practice of gene-editing of human DNA. The growing opposition comes as details of a Chinese biologist’s attempt to gene-edit embryos to resist HIV led to massive criticism of the flawed experiment. While the technology of altering DNA of humans, plants, animals is still in its infancy, the rate at which it is spreading worldwide with little oversight gives cause for alarm.

In December, 2019 the Japanese Health Ministry recommended a ban on implanting genetically modified human embryos. They warned such procedures could lead to a market for ‘designer babies.’ They follow recommendations of a panel of experts who warned that allowing gene-edited human embryos to be placed in the uterus for gestation held very serious health risks for both the infant and for future generations. In 2018 the Japanese government had moved to permit gene-editing of human embryos.

The latest decision by Japan to call for a ban on using the gene-edited embryos to give birth to gene-altered babies is a clear reaction to worldwide protest against a Chinese biologist who reported he had gene edited twins to be immune to HIV. It was the first report of babies born who had been genetically edited with CRISPR. Since then a growing number of scientists have called for a moratorium on gene editing of humans. Feng Zhang, a member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the co-inventor of CRISPR/Cas9, has called for a moratorium on gene-edited babies. Nobel laureate David Baltimore said the He human experiment showed “there has been a failure of self-regulation in the scientific community.”

Human gene experiments

Last December, a full year after proclaiming their success in creating the first gene edited twins who were HIV resistant, Chinese biologist He Jiankui, professor at Southern University of Science and Technology, agreed to release the full details of his human gene editing experiment. The MIT Technology Review has now published extensive excerpts from the He document. In November, 2018 He claimed a major first: to have used the gene editing technology CRISPR to change the DNA of human embryos during in vitro fertilization using CRISPR gene editing technology.

The MIT critique is a devastating condemnation of the scientific procedures of He and his team. After criticizing He for ignoring ethical and scientific norms in creating the twins Lula and Nana, allegedly born in late 2018, the MIT journal states, that Prof. He did not even succeed in reproducing the gene mutation that gives HIV resistance. Fyodor Urnov, a genome-editing scientist at the University of California, Berkeley told the MIT Technology Review:

“The claim they have reproduced the prevalent CCR5 variant is a blatant misrepresentation of the actual data and can only be described by one term: a deliberate falsehood.”

In addition to their deliberate falsehoods, the MIT journal points out that He and his associates have made it difficult to find the family by deleting the names of the fertility doctors from their paper and giving a false date of birth. In short, the human gene editing experiment did not prove what He had claimed and could have created major biological dangers instead.

Reacting to the international uproar over He’s radical experiment, Chinese government investigation found He Jiankui violated state law in pursuit of “personal fame and fortune,” sentencing He to three years in prison.

In another highly controversial case involving human gene editing, a team of researchers led by Prof Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte from the Salk Institute in the USA have produced monkey-human chimeras in 2017. The report says that the research was conducted in China “to avoid legal issues.” In December 2019 Chinese scientists announced they had created pig monkey hybrids as a step to eventually grow human organs in animals for transplant.

“This is the first report of full-term monkey-pig chimeras”, Tang Hai at the State Key Laboratory of Stem Cell and Reproductive Biology in Beijing told New Scientist.

The real issue in the exploding use of gene editing to alter DNA in animals, plants and even humans is the fact that it is not at all clear how safe it is in the long term. Most countries including the United States require no special government regulatory oversight. Recently it was discovered that gene edited mosquitoes intended to eradicate zika or malaria in Brazil had failed and the mutants had survived. The genetically engineered mosquitoes produced by the biotech company, Oxitec, now part of the US company Intrexon, escaped human control after trials in Brazil and are now spreading in the environment.

Potentially CRISPR gene-editing technology might enable positive change as well, such as treatments for genetic diseases; altering the germline of humans, animals, and other organisms; and modifying the genes of food crops for positive traits. We don’t know at this point. Yet the degree of unbiased scientific and government oversight over use of CRISPR is appalling and potentially dangerous. At present China seems to be making major experiments in gene editing and sees it as a core part of its biotechnology goals, one of the ten areas of Made in China 2025. At this point China would significantly add to its credibility in terms of safe research by following the lead of Japan and formally banning gene editing experiments of humans as a principle of precaution.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

While the final outcome of the U.S.-Iran conflict is not yet clear, US media outlets and think tanks are already claiming that Russian President Putin is the winner. The U.S.-Iran hostilities has undermined Washington’s confidence and reputation in the region, allowing Russian influence in the Middle East to increase as a force for peace and stability. While it is unclear exactly how Moscow can benefit from escalations between Washington and Tehran, U.S. media are convinced that any outcome will be consistent with the Kremlin’s plans to increase its political influence in the region and create a rift between Washington and its allies. 

This simplistic explanation does not account the fact that Moscow has a clear foreign policy to achieve its geopolitical goals in the Middle East while Washington mostly depends on their own internal contradictions and events on the domestic political scene to guide their foreign policy. The assassination of Iranian General Soleimani, made on orders from Trump, questions whether this was to demonstrate his power and determination to protect U.S. national interests in the face of domestic criticisms, to serve Evangelical Christian interests on behalf of Israel, or part of a clear guided policy that the U.S. has for the Middle East.

The Democrats are trying to show the public that everything Trump does is contributing more to Russian interests rather than American. It appears that the Democratic Party will continue with the same rhetoric to try and win this year’s election.

Moscow maintains good relations with all countries in the Middle East region and there is no country with which Russia has an openly hostile relationship. Moscow successfully balances its relations between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Israel, while the U.S. attempts to divide the region into competing camps with no interest of defusing tensions, suggesting that even if Washington has a clearly defined Middle East policy, it is one based on division and destruction rather than one of balance and peace.

As a result of the assassination of General Soleimani, calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq under pressure from local authorities have been made. Without troops in Iraq, the Americans are incapable of retaining their positions in Syria, which increases Russia’s manoeuvring space, strengthens its positions, influence, and opens space for filling the political vacuum. The U.S. has become embroiled with so many Middle Eastern countries that it is now struggling to cope to withdraw. Washington has already tried to withdraw its troops from Iraq during the Obama era.

But it is one thing to militarily withdraw on your own will and based on your decision, and another to withdraw because you have been asked too. Although the U.S. criticizes Iranian influence across the region and claims the Islamic Republic is acting in an aggressive manner, the Trump administration has not even hid away from the fact its an occupying force by flatly refusing to withdraw from Iraq despite being told to by the country’s parliament.

However it was the assassination of Soleimani that the most ridiculous claims were being made, with Bloomberg even suggesting that Putin needs a “Plan B” because the Iranian General’s death disrupted Russian plans for Syria, Iran and Turkey. This scenario implied that Trump’s aggressive actions would elicit an even more aggressive response from the Iranian side, eventually leading to an escalation of the conflict in which Tehran lacked adequate defense capabilities. This implies that Iran will lose the status of a regional power and Russia will have no choice but to betray Syria. This option quickly disappeared from the media space as reality completely denied this possibility.

As for Putin’s victory, many cite the fact that many European leaders are increasingly turning to Russia as a reliable partner in face of Trump’s unpredictability. It is fair to say that the U.S strategy in the Middle East is a mystery even to U.S. allies. With Washington being unrelenting in attempting to maintain the unipolar world order, it has forced Europeans to cooperate with reliable Russia.

This is not the first time that Washington has made a problem for its allies, citing the example of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany and France, along with Russia, protested U.S. President George Bush and his actions. While Iraq was an example of typical aggression, the Americans did not lose allies because of this, nor did NATO disintegrate. However, domestic politics has always been a major focus for U.S. presidents, obviously, which in turn can influence foreign policy decisions for internal political use. In the case of killing an Iranian general and in the propaganda that Russia is the victor in the U.S.-Iran conflict, nothing new has happened.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

The dismissal of Dennis Muilenburg as CEO of Boeing might have looked like an early Christmas present to the employees and shareholders of Boeing, but the company’s disease has gone way past the point where any single corporate surgeon can save the patient. For those who bothered to look (and this evidently did not include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)), Boeing’s increasing degeneration has been evident for decades, even as the stock price continued to rise, as a consequence of quirky accounting practices that masked the company’s deteriorating cash flow position. If the 737 Max 8 is killed off for good, it will create a huge existential risk for Boeing’s future as a viable civilian aviation manufacturer, as the company had projected revenues from its 737-related sales into its business plans for many years to come (it goes without saying that the Pentagon will keep the company afloat, with Boeing effectively operating as a military subdivision of the Department of Defense).

The 737 Max 8 is not the first example whereby Boeing has violated the principle canon of aviation: namely, to manufacture a plane that flies as simply and safely as possible. While this principle has been most egregiously flouted in the case of Boeing’s latest iteration of the “Next Generation” series of 737 planes, the Max 8, the 787 Dreamliner has also remained an ongoing headache for the company.

Growth of Commercial Airlines

Over their economic lifespan, all successful commercial airlines do two things: they grow in size, first, by creating new models that carry more passengers. Second, they adopt new technologies that lower the cost per seat mile (this is becoming increasingly germane when factoring the fuel economy into the cost, given the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent rulings that aircraft emissions contribute to climate change, hence opening the way for additional regulation of the industry).

One wonders if Boeing – hamstrung by its self-inflicted errors, notably the degradation of its historic flight engineering capabilities – will remain sufficiently robust to allow it to continue to capitalize, for example, on the growing all-electric market (that could well become a major feature of future regional air travel). The two are not strictly related, but clearly the longer the 737 problems remain, the more impaired becomes the capacity for Boeing to innovate in other areas and profit from this growing trend in “green aviation” (as well as offsetting increasing regulatory headwinds).

In any event, there is ample evidence to suggest that the company will continue to lose global market share, notably to Airbus, largely because of decisions made early in the 737’s life. The Max 8 problems are largely the by-products of bad hardware design, not flawed computer software. The plane sits too low to the ground to handle the growing size of engines or provide adequate takeoff and landing clearance when lengthened. Instead of acknowledging the need to build a better airframe that would have addressed the structural flaws (i.e., longer landing gear and more upward bend in the wing), Boeing has instead relied on a software fix called the “Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System,” or MCAS for short. (The problems afflicting the Max 8 are not an issue for its competitor plane, the Airbus A320neo, where manual overrides by the pilot are built into the system, which in turn prevent the types of crashes that characterized the infamous Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 flight.)

The MCAS modifications ostensibly saved money for Boeing in the short term, but that represented another instance of an overly financialized company being penny-wise and pound-foolish, given the ongoing challenges associated with the 737 Max 8. Despite the oft-cited “improvements” made to the 737 Max 8’s computer software, the plane still has not received its safety certification from any global aviation authority, including the Federal Aviation Administration (which until recently has largely ignored its regulatory mandate and acted more as a promoter for the U.S. civil aviation industry). The long delay is consistent with the notion that the problems extend well beyond computer software shortcomings. That the FAA recently hinted that additional flight simulator training is all that would be required to get the planes recertified, however, is most concerning, as it evades the more profound hardware issues. It would imply that reconfiguring the MCAS software and training pilots accordingly sorts out the problems.

Even this concession on the part of Boeing would be problematic for the company, as Gregory Travis, a pilot of 30 years and commentator on civil aviation matters, has argued:

“Put in a change with too much visibility, particularly a change to the aircraft’s operating handbook or to pilot training, and someone – probably a pilot – would have piped up and said, ‘Hey. This doesn’t look like a 737 anymore.’ And then the money would flow the wrong way.”

In other words, the “solution” still threatens Boeing’s future cash flow and further undermines its credibility

Burning Cash

One can understand why Boeing is so keen to recertify as soon as possible: As of the end of Q3 2019, the company had negative operating cash flow of $2.4-billion. The company is currently burning cash at a rate of $1.5-billion to $2-billion a month, largely as a consequence of ongoing payments to suppliers, such as Spirit AeroSystems (the company that builds the 737 fuselages), lest the supply chain collapse. Barron’s also reported that, “About 275 [737 Max 8] planes have been built and parked. Inventories have consumed nearly $10-billion in cash in 2019.”

Boeing has continued to cover its cash flow shortfall by issuing more corporate bonds, which explains the large rise in debt. But the failure to get the 737 Max back in the air means that the company can no longer credibly book revenues from anticipated further sales of the plane. In fact, if the plane is not recertified by the spring of 2020, Boeing’s cash position could become perilous, as nearly all airlines will have the ability to cancel their orders and get their cash deposits back, which is up to 70 percent of the plane value prior to delivery.

Cash flow pressures are already mounting for Boeing: Ryanair has already disclosed that it stopped putting deposits down last November, and is also looking for incremental price discounts on its existing Max orders. Other airlines are doing the same, as Boeing acknowledged on a recent investor conference call, reported by Barron’s. At the same time, United Airlines has recently placed a $7-billion order with Airbus to replace its aging fleet of 757 Boeings. While not directly related to the problems with the 737, the purchase must be viewed as an overall vote of no confidence from a company long regarded as one of Boeing’s most loyal customers.

Boeing’s new CEO, David Calhoun, is unlikely to solve these multifold problems. Having spent 26 years at General Electric, stripping aviation talent out and replacing real engineering with financial engineering, Calhoun eventually became a director at Boeing in 2009. In 2014, he joined the Blackstone Group, a private equity firm that, as Matt Stoller points out, “is a vector for financializing corporations” as well as being a company well-versed in creative accounting shenanigans that enable corporate entities like Boeing to mask their extensive cash flow problems. During his tenure as a Boeing board member, Calhoun has been a party to a series of decisions whereby financial machinations of the company’s managerial class have taken precedence over safety culture. Despite many years of affiliation to the aviation industry, then, Calhoun himself is merely another financial “Master of the Universe,” representative of a caste that specializes in outsourcing and stripping out talent, all the while championing practices such as dressing up the balance sheet in a manner that is legal, but has distorted the underlying profits position of the company.

Unfortunately, soon there might be nothing left for Boeing to outsource. At the end of December, Spirit AeroSystems indicated that it would “suspend production of 737 MAX fuselages on Jan. 1,” according to a report from the Seattle Times. Although this has been characterized as a “temporary suspension,” it will be highly problematic to restart production if the recertification does not come imminently. Consider the following:

1. Spirit builds nearly 70 percent of the 737 at its Wichita, Kansas, plant. (Boeing’s Renton, Washington, factory is effectively only for final assembly; the majority of the plane is built by Spirit.)
2. Spirit employed thousands of workers on 737 production.
3. The 737 production accounts for more than half of Spirit’s entire revenue.
4. As of last December, Spirit informed the state of Kansas of impending layoffs as a result of the work stoppage brought about by the ongoing grounding of the 737 Max 8, and has begun to carry out the layoffs at the start of January 2020.

To survive as a viable entity in its own right, Spirit is seeking to pivot away from its dependence on Boeing – by going after Airbus contracts (including Spirit’s $1.1-billion purchase of the old Bombardier factory in Northern Ireland to make Airbus wings). That won’t help the workers in Wichita get their jobs back, even if the diversification proves successful, but it does highlight the enormous costs associated with a loss of confidence and trust between Boeing and its civilian subcontractors. As in the breakdown of any relationship, the injured parties begin to consider new strategies in order to protect themselves. This is exactly what Spirit has done. Like a wronged spouse, Spirit is now looking for a more reliable partner.

As for the thousands of Spirit workers, who have just joined the ranks of the unemployed, unless Spirit can make some believable promises to them that they will be rehired very quickly, they will begin to disperse into the Wichita workforce or beyond. Of course, Spirit can make no such promises because it cannot be assured of any credible commitments from Boeing. And Boeing, in turn, cannot make any promises because it has lost control of the narrative about recertification. The longer the delays, the more they entrench the idea that Boeing can no longer be trusted to build a safe plane.

As of today, Boeing’s relationship with Wall Street, although fraying, remains intact. This has enabled the company to keep borrowing (and also explains the decision of the board to continue making regular dividend payments, as a cut or suspension of such payouts would likely alert the markets as to the full magnitude of Boeing’s cash flow crisis, thereby curbing their ability to take out additional financing).

But as a viable civilian manufacturing concern, Boeing’s future remains tenuous. The appointment of David Calhoun as CEO likely represents a stopgap, although his financial engineering expertise will likely prove useful if and when the civilian aviation business is spun out from the military division, and taken it into bankruptcy or reorganization, after the legal asset-stripping has taken place. In that regard, Boeing’s trajectory will represent the perfect apotheosis of all that has gone wrong with American capitalism for the past half-century.

Likewise, the FAA will do little to assuage concerns about its own regulatory capture, if it settles for a fig-leaf solution to resolve the recertification issues surrounding the 737. Like Caesar’s wife, the country’s leading civil aviation authority must be seen to be above suspicion.

At this point, no one can credibly promise anyone else anything, whether we’re talking about Boeing, the FAA or the overall system itself. There is zero empathy in the system, and zero empathy translates into total entropy. Wall Street does not understand this because Wall Street does not understand how to quantify empathy and trust other than in the crude human instrument of goodwill. Hence Boeing’s stock price will likely remain unaffected until disaster is staring even the most stonehearted analyst in the face. Much like the failed early warning systems that failed to avert the tragic 737 Max accidents, at that point, it might well be too late to rescue Boeing.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Ex-Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg left the aerospace giant with $80.7 million in salary, stock options and other bonuses after he was forced to resign from the company in December, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing disclosed on Friday. Chief among his services rendered was spearheading the production and certification of the 737 Max 8 aircraft, which killed 346 passengers and crew in two crashes, making it one of the deadliest commercial jets ever put into service.

Muilenburg’s assets include shares worth $4.3 million, pension and back pay totaling $28.5 million and long-term stock options amounting to $29.4 million. Boeing also preserved his right to purchase nearly 73,000 shares of company stock at a pro-rated value of $5.5 million, which he could then resell for $24 million.

Having rushed the new jet into service, cutting safety corners and covering up known and potentially fatal engineering and software dangers, and then vouching for the safety of the plane after both the first crash, in October 2018, and the second, in March 2019, Muilenburg’s “punishment” was the loss of his severance package, worth an estimated $14.6 million.

Boeing allocated only $50 million in compensation for the 346 families who lost loved ones in the two crashes—Lion Air Flight 610 outside of Jakarta, Indonesia, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 outside Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The lives lost, according to the company, are only worth $144,500 each, less than what Muilenburg averaged in a month.

The callousness with which Boeing has treated the crash victims’ families as compared to its chief executive is an example of class justice in America. A worker accused of reckless driving in Washington state, where the Max 8 is made, can be thrown into jail for 364 days and fined up to $5,000. The corporate CEO who recklessly went ahead developing a deadly aircraft and who should be tried for the murder of hundreds of men, women and children is rewarded with a new windfall to add to his fortune.

Moreover, as the result of the grounding of the Max 8 after the second crash and production freeze that began this month, Boeing subcontractor Spirit AeroSystems has laid off 2,800 employees. The parts manufacturer generates 80 percent of its revenue from its Boeing contract, a large portion of which is making the fuselage for the deadly plane.

The company has also announced that it will be laying off more workers at its plants in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, none of whom will receive any compensation from Boeing for having their livelihoods destroyed. These are no doubt only the first of many thousands of layoffs the working class will be forced to suffer as a result of the company’s greed and negligence.

The criminality of the Max 8 enterprise was again laid bare on Thursday, when the Washington Post reported that Boeing had submitted to Congress a trove of internal communications in which employees with their names redacted expressed their frustrations with the management of the project and fears that the aircraft was unsafe to fly.

“This is a joke. This airplane is ridiculous,” commented one employee in a conversation regarding updates to the Max hardware and software. “Fix one thing, break [three] others.” A different missive exclaimed, “I’ll be shocked if the FAA passes this turd.”

Another message proposed darkly that one could avoid the dangers of the Max 8 by committing suicide. “Get silencer, put on end of gun, place adjacent to temple, and pull trigger—the problems stop. At this point, how can they consider continuing?”

An email from 2018 suggests that problems similar to those that have plagued the Max 8 are continuing in the development of Boeing’s newest plane, the 777X. It reads:

“Why did the lowest ranking and most unproven supplier receive the contract? Solely based on the bottom dollar. Not just MAX but also the 777X! Supplier management drives all these decisions… Best part is we are re-starting this whole thing with the 777X with the same supplier and have signed up to an even more aggressive schedule!”

The documents also show the lengths Boeing was willing to go to ensure that pilot simulator training not be required for the Max 8 in order to keep overhead costs as low as possible. Emails signed by Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot at the time, Mark Forkner, stressed “the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to Max” when discussing the aircraft with federal regulators.

Forkner also played a key role in forcing international regulators to accept Boeing’s assertion that only a minimal computer-based training course was required to fly the Max 8. He wrote, likely to regulators at India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation, that there “is only one difference between the [737 NG] and [737 Max],” and they should withdraw their reservations because the regulatory agencies in Argentina, Canada, China, Europe, Malaysia and the US had already done so.

As was conclusively shown by Indonesia’s aviation regulatory agency in its final report of the Lion Air crash, the planes plunged to their doom as a result of a previously little-known anti-stall mechanism called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was concealed from test pilots during the Max 8’s certification and kept out of manuals used by commercial pilots flying the aircraft, even after the first crash.

There are no innocent explanations for these exposures. Despite Boeing’s denials that the emails “are inconsistent with Boeing values,” they make clear that the company, its executives and its major shareholders gave far greater weight to their profits and stock prices than the safety of the people who would eventually be on board the flying deathtrap.

This includes $200 billion made by major Boeing shareholders such as The Vanguard Group, T. Rowe Price Associates, the Newport Trust Co., SSGA Funds Management and Blackrock Fund Advisors, among others, from the time the Max 8 was first announced to just before the second crash. For his part, Muilenburg made $6.5 million selling stock the month before Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 plummeted to its destruction, suggesting that he and other executives who made similar multi-million-dollar windfalls had concerns about the safety of the plane.

The criminalization of the American ruling class is the product of the degeneration and crisis of the entire social and economic system of capitalism. The Boeing disasters underscore above all the need to mobilize the working class to expropriate the major banks and giant corporations in order to transform them into publicly owned and democratically controlled utilities.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Pres. Trump with Keith Muilenberg in February 2017 [Photo credit: Ryan Johnson]

All nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to US interests are on its target list for regime change.

US policies toward them are based on Big Lies and mass deception.

Throughout the post-WW II era, all US hot wars and by other means were against nonbelligerent countries threatening no one — from North in the 1950s Korea to the present day.

All nations the US doesn’t control are on its target list for regime change — notably Russia, China and Iran.

All of the above is what its imperial agenda is all about — humanity’s greatest threat, risking possible global war with nuclear weapons by accident or design if the world community doesn’t unite to stop the madness.

The Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis pushed the envelope closer to greater regional war.

The killings greatly angered millions of Iranians, Iraqis, and the Arab street against the US regional presence, against the menace it poses.

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll released Sunday showed 57% of independents and 56% of all US adults surveyed disapprove of Trump’s Iran agenda.

A majority of respondents (52%) believe Soleimani’s assassination made the US less safe, only 25% saying the country is more safe, 22% saying it had no effect either way.

On the issue of possible US conflict with Iran, 73% of respondents expressed concern about the possibility in the wake of Soleimani’s assassination (94% of Dems, 52% of Republicans, 73% of independents).

Trump unjustifiably justified Soleimani’s assassination based on Big Lies, falsely claiming it was to “stop a war,” and an “imminent threat” of attack on four US regional embassies.

On Sunday, US war secretary Mark Esper refuted Trump’s claim. Asked if there was evidence of a threatened Iranian attack on US regional diplomatic facilities, he said:

“I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies,” separately on the same day saying he knew of no “specific evidence” of an imminent Iranian threat to US diplomatic facilities.

Omitted from his remarks was that the Islamic Republic never preemptively attacked another nation throughout its 40-year history — or that Iran, formerly Persia, never waged aggressive war for the past two or three centuries.

Iran is the region’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and mutual cooperation among all nations — the US, NATO, and Israel its major aggressors.

Neither Iran or General Soleimani threatened anyone. Pompeo falsely accused the regionally admired general of plotting “imminent and sinister” attacks on US officials and military personnel.

He presented no evidence backing his claim because none exists! Saying the assassination was justified defied reality.

Iran’s retaliation against Pentagon bases in Iraq sent a message that further hostile US actions will be responded to harshly.

IRGC missiles can strike US bases, warships, and imperial allies anywhere in the region with devastating force.

Iran wants peace, not war. If the Trump region and/or Israel attack the country militarily, they’ll risk all-out regional conflict, possible global war if they go this far.

Washington is its own worst enemy longterm, its hostile actions sowing the seeds of its decline as a world power politically, economically and otherwise.

It’s weakened by aiming to dominate other nations instead of fostering cooperative relations, what in hindsight is likely to be known.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The murders of Iranian General Soleimani and others at Baghdad International Airport on Jan. 3 is an act of war against Iraq and Iran. This action by the U.S. violates the UN Charter and international law. It places the whole world at risk.

The excuses for the U.S. action are as empty as the rationale of “weapons of mass destruction” used to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq.

Millions have died because of American actions in the Middle East. The U.S. has also caused untold suffering by the use of illegal sanctions on Iran in violation of the UN Charter.

This is not the first time the U.S. has assassinated Iranian citizens.

We condemn the support to the American action by the Canadian government.

We call on the Canadian government to withdraw all its forces in Iraq.

Peace can only come from international cooperation, diplomacy and following international law. It will not come from acts of war and murder.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Ed Lehman is President, Regina Peace Council.

Donald Trump is under the illusion that the fracas with Iran is over. He thinks that Iran’s pinprick missile strikes on US bases in Iraq have assuaged Tehran’s thirst for revenge. But he’s wrong. The missile strikes were merely the first salvo in an epic cage match between Iran’s Axis of Resistance and its 70 year-long nemesis, the United States. As Iran’s Supreme Leader said on Wednesday, the missile attacks were not sufficient payback for the assassination of Iran’s most decorated military hero, Qassem Soleimani. They were just “a slap”, just Round One in what will surely be a long and bloody campaign aimed at driving the US out of the Middle East.

I wonder if Trump has any idea of what he’s done? It’s one thing to hector, threaten, coerce and sanction a rival nation, especially a nation that sits on an ocean of oil in a strategically-located area like the Middle East. But it’s another thing to assassinate the country’s highest-ranking and most revered military commander, an Iranian Rommel, whose tireless devotion to service spans a 40 year-long period. That’s not something that can be shrugged off or swept under the rug. That’s an act of war that requires a muscular response from the state. No country can allow its military leaders to be killed with impunity. Iran will have to fight back, and they will fight back. The question is “how”?

Iran will likely intensify the strategy that Soleimani perfected; hybrid, 4th Generation unconventional warfare conducted via Iran’s proxies in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Lebanon. They will forgo using their bulging arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles and, instead, implement an asymmetrical strategy aimed at roiling markets, blocking shipping lanes, demolishing petrochemical plants and wasting oil tankers. The objective will be to wreak havoc across the region making the US presence less and less tenable while invoking plausible deniability as to the perpetrator. It will be a war that is largely conducted in the shadows. The Middle East is a target-rich environment for those who have the proxies, the weapons and the inclination to create mayhem. This is a war that Iran is prepared to fight and this is a war that Iran can win.

Iran also has more extreme options as illustrated in this excerpt from an article at DW:

“The IRGC can threaten shipping lanes in the Gulf, Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea through the application of a wide variety of assets it has at its disposal, including submarines, smart torpedoes, smart mine capability, and land-based, long-range anti-ship missiles strategically based on the mainland, islands, and ships”…Such attacks could put a halt to the world’s oil transport network, at least for a time. One-fifth of global oil production is shipped through the strait between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. If the Strait of Hormuz were to become unsafe for ship passage, it would not only affect the United States but also a large number of countries around the world. The US would be under great pressure to end any war with Iran as quickly as possible….” (“Iran-US conflict: Tehran’s asymmetrical approach”, dw.com)

Did Trump mull-over any of these grim scenarios before he ordered the assassination of Soleimani? Was he told that both Obama and G.W. Bush opted not to kill Soleimani because they knew the backlash would be too great? Did Trump even know that Soleimani helped the US defeat ISIS and al Qaida in Iraq and Syria?

How much did Trump actually know about Soleimani or was he intentionally kept in the dark by his fanatical neocon advisors like Mike Pompeo? That doesn’t excuse Trump or make him any less culpable for his decision, but it does suggest that his sources of information might be tainted by conflicting political agendas. A recent article in the New York Times titled “Pompeo Upended Middle East by Pushing Trump to Kill Iranian General” appears to support this theory. Here’s an excerpt:

“Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the loudest voice in the administration pushing President Trump to kill Iran’s most important general….The strike against the Iranian general has affirmed Mr. Pompeo’s position as the second-most powerful official in the Trump administration…… as the man at the center of the argument to launch the drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani — and who pushed Mr. Trump to withdraw from the landmark Iran nuclear deal in 2018 — he is in the unusual role of shaping national security policy…

Mr. Pompeo, 56, could become known as the man who helped lead the United States into another conflict in the Middle East — breaking one of Mr. Trump’s key campaign promises just as the president faces re-election..

Mr. Pompeo said he and other American officials “evaluated the relevant risks” that the strike against General Suleimani might bring. He cited “continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans.”…(“Pompeo Upended Middle East by Pushing Trump to Kill Iranian General”, New York Times)

This simply isn’t true. Soleimani did not organize any “campaign activities” to kill American soldiers. That’s baloney. He was in Baghdad working on a peace agreement with his Saudi counterpart when he was incinerated by a missile launched from an American drone. Pompeo has produced no hard evidence to back this spurious claim.

Nor is there any proof that there was an “imminent threat”. That’s another one of Pompeo’s howlers. The only threat that materialized was the threat that an Iranian General on a peace mission would be senselessly obliterated by a bloodthirsty cabal in Washington. Here’s more from the Times:

“…no major attack against the sprawling and heavily-fortified diplomatic compound in Baghdad’s Green Zone is “imminent,” even though Mr. Pompeo has asserted that repeatedly, said the official, who discussed administration deliberations only on the condition of anonymity. Some Pentagon officials had said earlier that there was no intelligence revealing any unusual threats.

On Tuesday, Mr. Pompeo did not repeat his assertions that the United States had intelligence about an “imminent” attack and instead pointed to recent violent episodes.

“If you’re looking for imminence, you need look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Suleimani,” Mr. Pompeo said, apparently referring to the rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia that killed an American interpreter, Nawres Hamid, in Iraq on Dec. 27.” (New York Times)

So rather than admit that he was lying, the cagey Pompeo simply diverts attention to the American contractor who was killed last week. That’s called bait-and-switch, a tactic that’s typically used by hucksters and charlatans. The fact is, there was no indication that an attack was imminent. None. Soleimani posed no threat to US troops or US assets at all. He was killed for nothing or, rather, he was killed because Trump and Pompeo wanted him dead. That’s the bottom line. Here’s more from the same article:

“Pompeo… is a chief architect of the rising tensions between the United States and Iran. As Mr. Trump’s first C.I.A. director, he created a special center to deal with Iran…Days after becoming secretary of state in 2018, Mr. Pompeo pushed Mr. Trump to withdraw from the nuclear agreement and reimpose strict sanctions on Iran. He has nurtured closer partnerships with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, enemies of Iran that sometimes have agendas that run counter to American interests….

In April, he advised Mr. Trump to designate as a foreign terrorist organization the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, an arm of the Iranian military that includes General Suleimani’s elite Quds Force. It was the first time the United States had applied that label to a part of another government.

And after the Dec. 31 breach of the American Embassy in Baghdad, Mr. Pompeo pushed harder for the strike against Mr. Suleimani, which Defense Department officials had presented to Mr. Trump as an extreme and not particularly palatable option only days earlier….

Last year, on a trip to Israel, Mr. Pompeo invoked the Bible in saying Mr. Trump was a modern-day Queen Esther sent by God to save the Jews from Iran.” (New York Times)

Let’s summarize:

1. Pompeo was the biggest and most outspoken supporter of assassination.
2. It was Pompeo “who pushed Mr. Trump to withdraw from the landmark Iran nuclear deal.”…
3. It was also Pompeo who convinced Trump that the benefits of killing Solemani outweighed the risks
4. It was also Pompeo who justified the assassination by stating that there was a “imminent threat” against US assets, a claim for which there is no evidence.
5. It was also Pompeo who persuaded Trump to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization.”
6. Pompeo is the “chief architect” of the administration’s failed Iran policy which includes the ongoing economic strangulation and the abandoning of Washington’s obligations under the terms of the nuclear agreement.
7. And, it will also be Pompeo who– like his ideological twin, George W Bush–will be “known as the man who helped lead the United States into another conflict in the Middle East.”

Again, none of this justifies Trump’s monstrous decision to kill Soleimani, but it does show how Pompeo’s ingratiating “apple-polishing” behavior has helped him to advance his own political agenda, an agenda that appears to be far more tilted in Tel Aviv’s favor than Washington’s. How does that fit with Trump’s “America First” doctrine?

It doesn’t fit at all, in fact, it strongly suggests that Pompeo’s loyalties lie elsewhere. Why else would he put the US on a path to a military confrontation with Iran, a confrontation that will undoubtedly have catastrophic implications for the United States? How does that benefit America?

And what would the outcome of such a hellish, region-wide conflagration be? Here’s how “Grand Chessboard” geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski summed it up more than a decade ago:

“An attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With the U.S. increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could even come to a premature end. Although the United States is clearly dominant in the world at the moment, it has neither the power nor the domestic inclination to impose and then to sustain its will in the face of protracted and costly resistance.”

This is the nightmare scenario, the end of America brought to you by the two biggest dunderheads to ever to serve in public office: Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo.

Is there any way to stop this train-wreck?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

A relatora especial da ONU sobre execuções extra judiciais, sumárias ou arbitrárias, Agnès Callamard, criticou o assassínio perpetrado pelo regime Trump, do General iraniano Soleimani,  do Vice Presidente iraquiano da PMU, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis e de outros que estavam com eles, twittando o seguinte:

“Os homicídios de Qasem Soleiman e Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis são muito provavelmente ilegais e violam o Direito Internacional sobre os Direitos Humanos”.

“Fora do contexto das hostilidades activas, o uso de drones ou de outros meios para matar alvos, quase nunca é legal.”

“Outro grande problema com as mortes extra-territoriais é a falta de supervisão”.

“Os poderes executivos decidem quem pode ser morto sem o devido processo judicial, quando é que agem em legítima defesa, contra quem e como. Sem a aprovação dos respectivos parlamentos.”

Pompeo comentou o assassínio de Soleimani com uma ladainha de Grandes Mentiras, dizendo:

O regime Trump “decidiu eliminar Soleimani em resposta a ameaças iminentes à vida de cidadãos americanos (sic).

“A nossa obrigação foi evitar a escalada (sic).”

Assassinar Soleimani foi uma “acção defensiva destinada a combater as ameaças agressivas utilizadas pela Força Iraniana Quds (sic)”.

Ele “estava a conspirar activamente na região para levar a cabo acções … que colocariam em risco dezenas senão centenas de vidas de americanos(sic)”.

Tudo o que foi mencionado acima é puro lixo e  ninguém que compreenda como os EUA agem acredita nessas afirmações, isto é, eles agem de acordo com as suas próprias regras e extra judicialmente, a fim de alcançar os seus objectivos imperiais.

Matar Soleimani, Muhandis e os que os acompanhavam, foi um assassinato a sangue frio dos EUA, um crime hediondo e injustificável.

O Pentágono desculpou ilegitimamente o seu acto criminoso, dizendo o seguinte:

“Sob a direcção de (Trump), as forças armadas dos EUA tomaram medidas defensivas decisivas para proteger o pessoal americano no estrangeiro, matando-os” – uma Grande Mentira, seguida de mais mentiras, afirmando falaciosamente:

Soleimani “comandou ataques a bases da coligação no Iraque, nos últimos meses (sic)”.

“Este ataque teve como objectivo impedir futuros planos de ataque iranianos.”

“Os Estados Unidos continuarão a tomar todas as medidas necessárias para proteger o nosso povo e os nossos interesses onde quer que estejam, em todo o mundo (sic).”

A agressão levada a cabo pelo regime Trump e pelos seus mais recentes predecessores transformou centenas de milhões de muçulmanos em inimigos dos EUA, além de inúmeros outros, em todo o mundo – tornando os EUA o país mais insultado do mundo.

Em toda a História da República Islâmica, desde 1979, as autoridades e chefias militares nunca ordenaram um ataque a outra nação ou aos respectivos oficiais.

Pompeo não apresentou provas que apoiassem as suas acusações absurdas porque não existem.

Sempre que António Guterres comenta incidentes como o assassínio de Soleimani e outras acções hostis dos EUA, da NATO e de Israel, ele apela sempre a todos os lados para mostrarem contenção – deixando de evidenciar a culpa onde ela pertence.

Depois de não dizer nada durante horas após a agressão patrocinada pelo regime de Trump contra Soleimani e os que o acompanhavam, o seu porta-voz emitiu a sua observação pré-escrita, dizendo:

“O Secretário Geral tem defendido consistentemente a não escalada no Golfo (sic). Está profundamente preocupado com a recente escalada (sic). ”

“Este é o momento em que os líderes devem exercer a máxima restrição (sic). O mundo não pode permitir que haja outra guerra no Golfo (sic). ”

“O mundo” precisa de um Chefe da Organização mundial com coragem moral, e não de um boneco pró-ocidental covarde – manipulado pelos poderes mais influentes em Washington, Bruxelas e Tel Aviv.

O líder do Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, pediu “a punição dos assassinos criminosos do regime Trump”, acrescentando:

É “o dever e a responsabilidade de todos os combatentes da resistência em todo o mundo”.

“Nós, que ficamos ao lado de Soleimani, seguiremos os seus passos e esforçar-nos-emos, dia e noite, para alcançar os seus objectivos.”

“Levaremos uma bandeira em todos os campos de batalha e em todas as frentes e intensificaremos as vitórias do ‘eixo da resistência’ com a bênção do seu sangue puro.”

O Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Síria condenou as agressões e os assassinatos dos EUA, designando  as suas acções como “uma escalada séria … um acto covarde  de agressão … que fortalece a nossa determinação de seguir o caminho dos líderes martirizados da resistência”.

Na sexta-feira, centenas de milhares de iranianos foram às ruas para condenar o regime de Trump.

A longo prazo, as políticas dos EUA são auto-destrutivas, o extremismo típico de uma nação em declínio.

Quanto maiores são as suas acções hostis em todo o mundo, mais inimigos eles adquirem.

Comentando o assassínio de Soleimani, a porta-voz do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Rússia, Maria Zakharova, diz o seguinte:

O “ataque com mísseis do Pentágono (que matou Soleimani e os outros) foi um acto que não está em consonância com o Direito Internacional … o cúmulo do cinismo” levado a cabo por um Estado imoral.

O objectivo de Washington tem tudo a ver com fazer valer o Poder sobre o Direito, procurando “alterar o equilíbrio de poder na região”.

“Não resultará em nada a não ser escalar tensões crescentes na região, o que, certamente, irá afectar milhões de pessoas”.

A acção do regime Trump “não escapará às Nações Unidas”, o Conselho de Segurança irá abordá-lo: o poder de veto dos EUA/Reino Unido/França impedirá a condenação oficial.

Matar Soleimani e o Vice Presidente da PMU do Iraque, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis e os restantes que os acompanhavam, só irá desestabilizar ainda mais a região.

As suas mortes nada tinham a ver com a protecção de vidas de cidadãos americanos, mas sim, tudo a ver com o avanço do Império Americano.

Foi um acto imprudente e auto-destrutivo que lhes saiu gorado, não conseguindo nada senão uma raiva popular ainda maior contra os EUA.

Também conduz os parlamentares iraquianos a aprovar uma legislação que ordene a saída das forças americanas do país, o que pode acontecer.

Stephen Lendman

Artigo original em inglês :

UN Secretary General Guterres Fails to Condemn US Assassinations in Iraq

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

Autor laureado, Stephen Lendman, vive em Chicago. Pode ser contactado através do email: [email protected]. Pesquisador Associado do Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Obra mais recente: “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visite o seu blog  sjlendman.blogspot.com.

O assassínio do General iraniano Soleimani autorizado pelo Presidente Trump desencadeou uma reacção em cadeia que se propaga para além da região do Médio Oriente. Esse objectivo estava nas intenções daqueles que decidiram esse acto. Soleimani estava sob a mira dos Estados Unidos há muito tempo, mas os Presidentes Bush e Obama não haviam autorizado a sua morte. Por que é que o Presidente Trump o fez? Há vários motivos, incluindo o interesse pessoal do Presidente em salvar-se do ‘impeachment’, apresentando-se como um firme defensor da América diante de um inimigo ameaçador. O motivo fundamental da decisão de assassinar Soleimani, tomada pelo ‘Estado Profundo’ antes da Casa Branca, deve ser procurado num factor que se tornou crítico para os interesses dos EUA só nos últimos anos: a progressiva presença económica chinesa, no Irão.

O Irão desempenha um papel de primeira importância na Nova Rota da Seda, lançada em Pequim em 2013, numa fase avançada de realização: ela consiste numa rede rodoviária e ferroviária entre a China e a Europa através da Ásia Central, do Médio Oriente e da Rússia, combinada com uma rota marítima através do Oceano Índico, do Mar Vermelho e do Mediterrâneo. Para as infraestruturas rodoviárias, ferroviárias e portuárias em mais de 60 países, estão previstos investimentos de mais de 1 trilião de dólares. Neste contexto, a China está a efectuar um investimento no Irão, de cerca de 400 biliões de dólares: 280 na indústria  petrolífera, do gás e da petroquímica; 120 em infraestruturas de transporte, incluindo oleodutos e gasodutos. Prevê-se que estes investimentos, realizados num período de cinco anos, sejam renovados sucessivamente.

No sector energético, a China National Petroleum Corporation, sociedade de propriedade estatal, recebeu do governo iraniano um contrato para o desenvolvimento da jazida ‘offshore’ de South Pars, no Golfo Pérsico, a maior reserva de gás natural do mundo. Além do mais, juntamente com outra empresa chinesa, a Sinopec (três quartos da mesma são propriedade estatal), está empenhada em desenvolver a produção dos campos petrolíferos de West Karoun. Desafiando o embargo USA, a China está a aumentar as importações de petróleo iraniano. Ainda mais grave para os USA é que, nesses e noutros acordos comerciais entre a China e o Irão, prevê-se o uso crescente do renminbi chinês e de outras moedas, excluindo cada vez mais o dólar.

No sector dos transportes, a China assinou um contrato para a electrificação de 900 km das linhas ferroviárias iranianas, como parte de um projecto que prevê a electrificação de toda a rede até 2025 e, provavelmente, também assinará um para uma linha de alta velocidade de mais de 400 km. As linhas ferroviárias iranianas estão ligadas à estrutura ferroviária de 2.300 km que, já a funcionar entre a China e o Irão, reduz o tempo de transporte de mercadorias para 15 dias, contra os 45 dias de transporte marítimo. Através de Tabriz, grande cidade industrial no noroeste do Irão – de onde parte um gasoduto de 2.500 km que chega a Ancara, na Turquia – as infraestruturas de transporte da Nova Rota da Seda, poderão alcançar a Europa.

Os acordos entre a China e o Irão não pressupõem componentes militares, mas, segundo uma fonte iraniana, para proteger as instalações serão necessários cerca de 5.000 guardas chineses contratados pelas empresas construtoras para os serviços de segurança. É significativo também o facto de que, no final de Dezembro, ocorreu no Golfo de Omã e no Oceano Índico, o primeiro exercício naval entre o Irão, a China e a Rússia.

Neste contexto, está claro por que razão, em Washington, foi decidido o assassínio de Soleimani: foi deliberadamente provocada a resposta militar de Teerão para reforçar o controlo sobre o Irão e poder atingi-lo, afectando o projecto chinês da Nova Rota da Seda, ao qual os USA não conseguem contrapor-se no plano económico. A reacção em cadeia desencadeada pelo assassínio de Soleimani também envolve a China e a Rússia, criando uma situação cada vez mais perigosa.

Artigo original em italiano :

La Cina, non solo l’Iran, sotto tiro Usa in Medioriente

il manifesto, 9 de Janeiro 2020

Tradução por Luisa Vasconcellos

A Russian military site Avia.pro has addressed the issue of “human error” relating to the crash of Ukraine’s Boeing 737 [departing from Tehran] on January 8, minutes after takeoff, which resulted in the death of 179 passengers and members of the crew.

Relying on military experts, the report intimates that the incident bears a canny (point by point) resemblance to the destruction of a Russian IL-20 in Latakia, Syria in September 2018.

Israeli fighters, followed by Syrian missiles, used the Russian plane as a shield, even if it meant its destruction and the death of 15 passengers.

The Russian military website refers to an independent investigation that concluded  the US is “at least partial US responsibility” in the January 8 tragedy:

“According to experts, the US military had deliberately changed the information on the Ukrainian Boeing 737 flight, making it a real target for the Iranian air defense systems.”

According to data from Pentagon-related sources, several U.S. military planes were observed in the sky in the vicinity of Iran’s airspace, just at the time of the Boeing’s flight departure.

Anomalies were observed on Iran’s radar system, probably due to a cyber attack.

The civilian plane was therefore confused with a fighter plane heading directly for a military target.

“Since the pilot made a U-turn, it is very likely that the US cyber attack had also focused on the navigation system of the Ukrainian Boeing. This is not the first time that Americans have done this type of action, ” said Avia.pro.

In addition, a member of the Security and Defense Committee of the Russian Duma accused the provocative US measures against Iran of having been the cause of the Ukrainian plane crash.

Original article Corriere PL  (Italian) Translation by Global Research

Iran should be commended for ceasing all disinformation activities aimed at covering up its role in the UIA-752 tragedy, but it didn’t do this just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it realized that its international reputation would continue to suffer if it hadn’t reversed its narrative course when it did and it also wanted to avoid the imposition of further sanctions against it for what happened.

Giving Credit Where It’s Due

Iran, to its credit, quickly came clean and admitted to its culpability in accidentally shooting down UIA-752 last week after vehemently insisting for the past few days that any such claims were nothing but a “big lie…(a) psychological operation…adding insult to the injury of the bereaved families”. Tehran didn’t do this just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it realized that its international reputation would continue to suffer if it hadn’t reversed its narrative course when it did. The author explained everything that went wrong with his previous analysis on the topic in his most recent article titled “Iran’s Shoot-Down Admission Is A Mea Culpa Moment For Alt-Media (Myself Included)“, where it was promised that a forthcoming analysis would soon be published about the reasons behind Iran’s about-face, ergo the purpose of the present piece. That aforementioned work, however, should be reviewed by the reader in order to obtain a better understanding of just how counterproductive Iran’s previous stance was to its soft power.

Everyone Is Politicizing The Tragedy

As it turned out, the US and its partners were actually correct in their original assessment that an Iranian missile mistakenly took down the aircraft, and President Rouhani should be commended for vowing that his country will seek to hold the culprit responsible, who it turns out was a senior IRGC commander. That goes a long way towards helping the victims’ families receive the closure that they desperately need after all sides politicized this tragedy. It wasn’t just the US that was politicizing it for the reasons that the author elaborated on in his earlier piece titled “UIA-752: Who Gains From Politicizing The Tragedy In Tehran?“, but Iran too, as is now known after it admitted what happened after trying so hard to literally bulldoze the truth with what would have been a massive but increasingly unconvincing cover-up. In fact, one can actually say that Iran is still politicizing the tragedy after Foreign Minister Zarif implied on Twitter that the US itself was actually to blame for what happened after its “adventurism” caused the “time of crisis” in which this tragedy transpired.

Think what one will about the ethics of Trump ordering Maj. Gen. Soleimani’s assassination, but the US nevertheless had the wisdom to prohibit its planes from flying over Iraq, Iran, and some of the nearby waters shortly after Tehran’s carefully choreographed missile strike against two American bases in the region. Iran, meanwhile, continued to let flights function as usual through its airspace, which indirectly contributed to the tragedy. In hindsight, it should have behaved more responsibly by shutting down its airspace or at the very least warning the public (and not just the US through indirect back channels) what form its envisaged revenge was going to take. Instead, it didn’t do any of that, possibly to give off the misleading optics that it “took the US by surprise”, which in turn would maximize the domestic effect of its symbolic response. That was an error of judgement as is now known but speaks to just how sensitive the situation is inside of the country that its leaders felt it necessary for Iran to fully “play its part” in last week’s “big show”.

Infowars & Sanctions

The proverbial cat is out of the bag after it became impossible for Iran to continue with its initial policy of denying even an accidental hand in what happened, but Zarif’s innuendo that Trump was really responsible because he supposedly started it is a political evasion meant to give more fodder to his Democrat opponents during the US’ ongoing domestic-“deep state” crisis. It’s also intended to normatively defend the country from any further unilateral sanctions the US that could potentially impose against its international arms trade if America decides to intensify its politicization of this tragedy to interfere with Russian-Iranian military relations. Earlier reports claimed that it was a Russian missile that took down the airliner, which if true, could be exploited to impose sanctions on the sale of all such weapons to Iran under the threat of “secondary sanctions” against all those who defy them. Considering that Russia is already abiding by some of the US’ energy-related ones, it’s not unforeseeable that they’d do the same for their possible military counterpart after what happened.

Iran needs Russia more than the reverse when it comes to their military relations, so Moscow’s possible decision to tacitly abide by any forthcoming US sanctions on the sale of any missiles to the Islamic Republic could definitely hurt Tehran’s capabilities in the short- and medium-terms. It was therefore most likely calculated that the greatest risk to the country’s interests laid in continuing to deny the increasingly obvious, wagering that it’s better to own up to what happened, attempt to deflect the blame to Trump to incite the “orange man bad!” crowd across the world, and hope that no such sanctions would follow. If they do, then Iran can point to its decision to take responsibility to push forth its case that there isn’t any normative basis behind those unilateral arms restrictions and the “secondary sanctions” that would almost certainly be imposed against all violators. It’s risky, and there’s no way to know whether the US will “be merciful” (as if it ever embodied that principle in its foreign policy in the first place, let alone against rivals!), but such is the thinking.

Concluding Thoughts

In any case, the rest of the world now sees that Iran is indeed behaving responsibly by admitting what happened, with the previous cover-up attempts either being all but forgotten but dismissed as part of some vague “deep state” struggle of the sort that’s routinely speculated to be in effect in Tehran. Literally all relevant players are politicizing the tragedy to advance their own interests, which is their right to do as sovereign states regardless of the ethics involved, but there’s no denying that Iran finally did the right thing regardless of its motivations. It takes a lot of political courage to come clean and acknowledge that it accidentally shot down a civilian airliner, something that Ukraine has failed to do for over five and half years since it took down MH-17, as the author explained in his recent review of a relevant documentary titled “Latest MH17 Documentary By SBU Whistleblower Shares Some Shocking Truths“. Sanctions, and a possibly intensified period of “deep state” struggle within Iran, might soon follow, but at least the rest of the world finally has some closure.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Al-Qaeda terrorists operating in the north of Syria and oppressing millions of Syrians can now breathe comfort after the United Nations Security Council extended their supply routes from their regional sponsor NATO member state Turkey for an additional Six months within its Resolution 2504.

Thousands of earlier UNSC resolutions remain unimplemented, especially those related to solving the violations of the Israeli apartheid regime against the people of Palestine, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon and the cross-border assassinations it carries out due to the absolute protection it gets from the three NATO member states in the UNSC.

His Excellency Bashar al Jaafari addressed the UN Security Council on Resolution 2504, on 10 January. The resolution subsequently passed, in what might be the largest Pontius Pilate abstention votes (4) in UN history. Scant reports suggest it is a watered-down extension of the criminal 2165 (2014), which breached the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

At this writing, the full Resolution, and details of the meeting remain available; the UN website has cried poor-mouth in its inability to provide the essentials, though it did find the massive funding to do a release on the wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garment, by the colonialist clique running the circus.

Ojala! The triage geniuses were able to post this page, showing the usual colonialist wailing, though it couldn’t quite squeeze in that France was the lone country to vote in support of 2504. The penholding House Servants were inconsolable.

Ambassador al Jaafari began his statement in noting the “inhumane scene” of the “two charters” of the assemblage: The written one, filled with noble aspirations, and the active one, of “political agenda” by some member states, a biased agenda which sullies the noble, written charter.

As multiple demonstrations conducted in Haiti, New-York, California, Ottawa, Montreal, Caracas etc… have shown, corrupt post-coup puppet regimes installed and maintained by the Core Group are highly unpopular.

“Since the onset of the terrorist war against my country,” Dr. Jaafari continued, the Syrian government has made “relentless efforts to ensure” the delivery of essential goods and services to its citizenry, including food, healthcare, education, and salaries, despite the illicit economic coercive measures erroneously named “sanctions.” The Syrian Arab Red Crescent and authorized NGOs have successfully worked with OCHA, in such deliveries, yet OCHA representatives at the UN engage in partiality, having “taken sides of western states” in hostility toward Syria.

He decried the hypocrisy of OCHA and the Under Secretary, cheering the criminality against his country. “So, OCHA today is providing food and humanitarian assistance to Idlib terrorists, who are bound to Tripoli in Libya through Turkey. That’s the ‘humanitarian’ action envisioned.”

Addressing Mark Lowcock’s “falsified” stats at UNSC, Ambassador Jaafari shows documentation for SARC convoys in 2018. [Archive]

Lowcock averts his gaze from documentation held by H.E. Jaafari. [Archive]

Thought the Charter is clear on the inviolability of sovereign rights of member states, UNSCR 2165 (2014) and extensions UNSCR 2393 (2017), UNSCR 2449 (2018) all violated Syria’s territorial integrity.

“Penholders” can accurately be described as ”teachers pets” culled from the General Assembly to give the best performances of House Servants, to the P3 masters.

Beginning with 2165, these resolutions permitting breach of Syrian sovereignty have provided terrorists with weapons — including of a chemical nature — finance, and the ability to smuggle out Syrian oil, artifacts, and property; Jabhat al Nusra terrorists occupying Idlib, have received their life line from Turkey, especially.

Excellency Jaafari reminded the Security Council that penholders have no legal standing at the UN. Current penholders, Kuwait, Belgium, and Germany have displayed unprofessional and unethical actions during this period. The Belgian let slip, during the meeting, that the trio had been “consulting with” council members and “neighboring countries,” not with Syria.

He reminded them that the capital of Syria is Damascus, not cities in foreign countries.

Diplomat Jaafari discredited the members who act as though engaged in Playstation games.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from Syria News unless otherwise stated

The Trump administration is adamant that Iranians welcome the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed Iraqis were “dancing in the street … thankful that General Soleimani is no more” and that Iranians will view the U.S. as “giving them freedom.” 

The facts on the ground did little to match Pompeo’s assessments, however, with massive funeral processions for Soleimani in both Iraq and Iran, while Iraq’s parliament called for the expulsion of U.S. troops because of Soleimani’s assassination. But one frequently cited Iranian voice in the mainstream media, Masih Alinejad, has been repeatedly echoing the administration’s claims that Iranians, despite all visible evidence, were welcoming Trump’s potential act of war against Iran.

Fox News for example presented Alinejad – who appeared on the network on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday – as an “Iranian journalist” or “Iranian journalist and activist,” missing a key detail about her biography: she’s paid by the U.S. government. CNN, and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens also quoted her without acknowledging her government funding.

Alinejad works as an “anchor, writer, reporter for [Voice of America] Persian Service,” a U.S. government owned television network broadcasting to Iranians, according to a publicly available description of her federal contract reviewed by Responsible Statecraft.

She received more than $305,000 in contracts for her work at Voice of America (VOA) Persia between May, 2015 and September 10, 2019, the date of her most recent contract.

That crucial context was missing in her television appearances and other media citations in which she appeared to closely echo the Trump administration’s line that the Soleimani assassination was welcomed in the region even when there is little evidence to support the assertion.

On Friday, Stephens took the contrarian view that Soleimani’s killing may bring calm to the region and cited Alinejad, without acknowledging her government funding, to back up his assertion. “One possible outcome is that a spooked Iranian leadership, already reeling from devastating sanctions and mass demonstrations, will prefer to tread lightly, at least for the time being,” wrote Stephens. “‘Suleimani’s death could bring a sense of realism to the Islamic Republic’s thinking,’ says the Iranian-American journalist Masih Alinejad.”

On Friday, Alinejad told Fox News that Western journalists in Iran are “not even in touch with ordinary [Iranian] people” and, largely due to purportedly wanting to maintain good relations with the Iranian government, don’t report on widespread dissatisfaction with the government and anger at Soleimani.

On Saturday, she told Fox News — again, contrary to available evidence — that “a lot of Iranians do not see Qassem Soleimani a hero” and claimed that Iranian victims of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ violence during the November protests in Iran are “very happy” with his death.

And on Fox News on Sunday, she continued to echo Trump administration claims that the large turnout for Soleimani’s funeral procession in Tehran was explained by “employees of the government” and students being “forced to go to the streets.” She added that “average Iranians see the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization” but acknowledged that Trump threatening to destroy Iranian cultural sites was unhelpful.

Fox News wasn’t the only network to give Alinejad a platform. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria had Alinejad on his show, GPS, on December 22 to discuss the month-long protests and introduced her only as “an Iranian Activist in exile” without disclosing that she is paid by the U.S. government.

In her own capacity, Alinejad is less than transparent about her ties to the U.S. government. On Twitter, she has more than 152,000 followers but she describes herself on her profile only as an “Iranian journalist and activist,” making no mention of her role at VOA or her government contracts.

Under the Trump administration, VOA has become, as one of the network’s former senior managing editors put it, “a mouthpiece of Trump — only Trump and nothing but Trump.” Another former senior editor there called it “blatant propaganda” with “no objectivity or factuality.” Indeed, VOA Persian journalists have increasingly attacked Americans who are critical of Trump’s Iran policy. In August, The Intercept took a closer look and found, “The public attacks are the most visible manifestation of a transformation that’s been underway since November 2016. VOA Persian and many of its staffers have become rabidly pro-Trump, abandoning their stated mission of providing balanced news to Iranians.”

U.S. government funded and operated Radio Farda also failed to disclose Alinejad’s role as a government contractor. In February, Radio Farda published an article describing how, “U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met Iranian-American women’s rights activist and journalist Masih Alinejad on Monday February 4 and thanked her for her bravery.”

Alinejad tweeted about the meeting, saying, “I did my best to be the voice of people who trust me,” and “many Iranians want an end to the Islamic Republic.”

The Washington Post published an op-ed on Monday by Alinejad, and while it originally did not disclose her VOA affiliation, it later amended the article to reflect her employment there. Media outlets should be following the Post in disclosing that Alinejad is being paid by the U.S. government and works for the increasingly pro-Trump Voice of America.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Masih Alinejad with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, February, 2019 (Photo credit: U.S. State Department)

When the Pentagon confirmed the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, U.S. President Donald Trump took to social media to post a single image of the American flag to the adulation of his followers. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the other flag synonymous with U.S. foreign policy, that of the ‘false flag’ utilized to deceive the public and stir up support for endless war abroad. While the chicken hawk defenders of Trump’s reckless decision to murder one of the biggest contributors in the defeat of ISIS salivated over possible war with Iran, their appetite was spoiled by Tehran’s retaliatory precision strikes of two U.S. bases in Iraq that deliberately avoided casualties while in accordance with the Islamic Republic’s right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations charter. The reprisal successfully deescalated the crisis but sent a clear message Iran was willing to stand up to the U.S. with the backing of Russia and China, while Washington underestimated Tehran which forewarned the Iraqi government of its impending counterattack so U.S. personnel could evacuate.

In the hours following the ballistic missile strikes, reports came in that a Boeing 737 international passenger flight scheduled from Tehran to Kiev, Ukraine had crashed shortly after takeoff from Imam Khomeini International Airport, killing all 176 passengers and flight crew on board. Initial video of the crash of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 (PS752) showed that the aircraft was already in flames while descending to the ground, leading to speculation it was shot down amid the heightened political crisis between Iran and Washington. In the days following, a second obscure video surfaced which only increased this suspicion. Meanwhile, Western governments quickly concluded that an anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile brought PS752 down and were eager to point the finger at Iran before any formal investigation. Many people, including this author, were admittedly skeptical as to how a plane taking off from Tehran could have been mistaken five hours after the strikes in Iraq.

The Greater United States of the title is not just the contiguous states of the mainland plus insets for Alaska and Hawaii, but includes many of the smaller – and not small – territories and possessions held by the U.S. around the world.  It is “seeing a familiar history differently” from the perspective of what were and are considered territories or possessions.  It is a story of land, slavery, economics, the military, and technology leading to globalization of trade, transport and communications, supported by a global network of military bases.  How to Hide an Empire by Daniel Immerwahr. “He tells the fascinating story of the United States outside the United States”. In crackling, fast-paced prose, he reveals forgotten episodes that cast American history in a new light.is an intriguing read into a history that is only touched upon in passing if  at all in mainstream presentations. 

Racism

The overall theme of the book as it explores the many different areas involved is that of racism.  It is not stated overtly as such, but in each historical episode, from each archival story, racism always plays a role, in the typical words about savages and lesser races needing to be civilized (at best) or simply to be done away with if recalcitrant (quite common!).

It starts with the first settlers to North America, following the expansion of the U.S. across the continent.  The land, in general, went from wilderness, to Indian Territory, to a pre-state territory and finally into statehood.  It then looks at the first overseas expansions with the Spanish-American war of which very little is known in its true light.

A fair bit of time is spent on this war, describing how the U.S. did not really win the war as Spain was already losing to the revolutions already occurring in Cuba, the Philippines and other colonies.  They found their excuse to intervene, sort of supported the successful guerilla fighters, then once victorious turned against them in order to install their own colonial apparatus to control the savages.

From this larger war, How to Hide and Empire goes through the interesting unknown histories of some smaller possessions, mostly rocky dry islets for guano, a late 19th century chemical needed for agriculture.  This introduces what Immerwahr calls the “pointillist” empire, the many small islets and locations (e.g. Guantanamo, Okinawa) scattered around the world for mostly strategic military purposes.  Kidnapping, racism, and exploitation accompanied these acquisitions.

How to hide an empire

After racism as a theme, the main idea of the book, a hidden empire, is obvious, and the answer is also obvious.  The first is simply to ignore it:  these histories are seldom if ever mentioned in the mainstream media or even in alternate media; the education system presents its histories in terms of defining dates and glorified names and supposed victories.

But above all the cultures of the people involved are destroyed.  The language is forbidden, and children are removed to schools where they cannot speak their native language.  They are then inculcated with the dominant myth of their needing enlightenment or civilization or in most early cases Christianity.  Another manner to destroy the culture is by changing laws to give the colonial/administrative  government power over all aspects of life, civilian and military.  Voting rights play significantly into this with laws on property, language, and education affecting people’s right to vote.

Empire

“Foreign prisons, walled compounds, hidden bases, island colonies, GPS antenna stations, pinpoint strikes, networks, planes and drones – these are the locales and instruments of the ongoing war on terror.  This is the shape of power today.”

There is no question in this presentation that the U.S. is and always was an empire.  Today it has changed from the landholding empires of the previous centuries European empires to that of an integrated economic, technological, surveillance empire.  Yet, for all that, “Territory still matters today…the history of the United States is the history of empire.”

Writing style

Immerwahr’s writing is a very well presented anecdotal style creating an interesting personal history of the different areas.  When discussing the guano story, significant for U.S. agriculture, he presents the story of Fritz Haber who later discovered how to fix nitrogen from the air, thus relieving pressure on the exhausted guano islets.  He later created the poison gases used in WW I.

His wife Clara, a gifted scientist in her own right, supposedly distraught over something in their marriage, committed “suicide”,  but knowing how these things usually work out today, she was probably murdered by Haber, who then went on to create Zyklon A and Zyklon B, the latter used in the German gas chambers.

Immerwahr’s writing includes many little interconnected stories such as this to present a highly readable and interesting ‘unseen’ history of U.S. overseas possessions. It is well worth the read for both those introducing themselves to the concept to the U.S. as empire, and those who already know it.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said yesterday that America’s next step, after recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, is the annexation of the occupied West Bank, Ma’an reported.

In a press conference held jointly with the Israeli Defence Minister Naftali Bennett, Friedman said that he has been doing his best since he become ambassador to “fix” the issues which remain outstanding after the 1967 war.

“Since coming here l’ve worked to add one more item to a busy agenda: helping to find a fix to the issues that still linger from the Six Day War.”

There are three important issues, he said, Jerusalem, which US has already recognised as Israel’s capital and relocated its embassy to, the Golan Heights, which America has recognised Israel’s sovereignty of, and the West Bank.

“But it didn’t make peace with everyone and when we came into office the lingering issues included three of significant importance: the status of 1) Jerusalem, 2) the Golan Heights and 3) Judea and Samaria. We have approached them in ascending order of complexity,” he said referring to the occupied West Bank using its Israeli name.

He pointed out that the West Bank is the most complicated issue because of the large number of Palestinians living there, noting that the US would propose its vision for the solution, referring to the deal of the century.

“It does not obfuscate the very real issue that 2 million or more Palestinians reside in Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank], and we all wish that they live in dignity, in peace, and with independence, pride and opportunity. We are committed to find a way to make that happen.”

Friedman added that Israel “recovers” it from Jordan in 1967 after it had “occupied” it for 19 years.

“Jordan had occupied Judea and Samaria for only 19 years and almost no one recognised its rights to the territory,” he continued.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

American polling firm Gallup has found that Afghans are the saddest people on earth, finding that nearly nine in ten respondents are “suffering,” in their own words, with zero percent claiming that they are currently “thriving.” When asked to rate their life out of a score of ten, Afghans gave an average answer of 2.7, a record low for any country studied. Worse still, when asked to predict the quality of their life in five years, the average answer was even lower: 2.3.

As the study mentioned, “the unprecedented finding highlights Afghans’ near-universal lack of optimism.” In more than a decade of data collection around the world on the topic, this is the first time that any population predicted that their future lives would be worse than their current ones. This, to Gallup, was “all the more notable” due to Afghanistan’s very young population; two-thirds of those interviewed were aged 35 or under. Less than half of the country said they experienced enjoyment or were treated with respect in the previous day, while 52 percent admitted to worrying for much of the day, up 10 percentage points from 2016.

Source | Gallup

Remarkably, the study does not mention the 18-year U.S.-led invasion and occupation of the country as a potential explanatory factor for their suffering. In fact, it explicitly warns against an American withdrawal, arguing that it would “strengthen the Taliban’s grip” over the country, thus, tacitly endorsing the U.S. government and presenting the military as a force for good in the region.

The United States attacked Afghanistan in October 2001, invading just weeks after the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. It justified the decision on the inaccurate claim that the Taliban were not willing to negotiate handing over top suspect Osama Bin Laden. Since 2001, the occupation and fighting have not stopped, destroying the country in the process and leading to the U.S. spending an estimated $2 trillion on the war. The U.S. military and its allies are the number one killers in the country. Despite this, the Taliban is now in a stronger position than at any time in the last two decades, controlling more territory than it did in 2001.

The human cost of the conflict is clear but quantifiable statistics are sparse. The World Bank estimates that the number of Afghans living in poverty rose from 9.1 million in 2007 to 19.3 million in 2016. The average income is less than 2,000 U.S. Dollars per year, one of the lowest of any country in the world.

This is not the first time that Gallup has downplayed its explosive findings that imply a strongly anti-imperialist message. In 2014, it surveyed world public opinion on which country they believed was the greatest threat to world peace. The overwhelming number one choice was the United States, with a quarter of those polled selecting the U.S. out of nearly 200 countries.  Even in closely allied states like Germany, fear of America was highest. Pakistan was a distant second, buoyed by a large Indian vote in the survey. Gallup decided not to ask the question again. A December poll from the Pew Research Center also showed a majority of Mexicansconsider the U.S. the greatest threat to their country.

In December, the Afghanistan Papers were leaked to the Washington Post. In what political commentator Kyle Kulinski described as the worst media failure of 2019, the documents revealed that high-level military officers believed that the war was unwinnable, but that knowledge was kept from the public by the government who deliberately misled the public since the invasion. Kulinski decried the near “total lack of coverage” of the news. “We were lied to all throughout the war, every step of the way” he said; “18 years we’ve been at war…no good has come from it.”

On the Afghanistan Papers, MintPress News contributor Medea Benjamin said:

The debacle in Afghanistan is only one case in a fundamentally flawed U.S. policy with worldwide consequences. New quasi-governments installed by U.S. “regime change” in country after country have proven more corrupt, less legitimate and less able to control their nation’s territory than the ones the U.S. has destroyed.

She argued that there is a single premise that Washington “refuses to learn”: that the underlying fault is not in how the U.S. tries to change societies through regime change, but in the “fundamental illegitimacy of regime change itself.” While the Trump administration has made a few noises about a withdrawal from Afghanistan, successive regimes before it have made similar proclamations. And with the recent deployment of 4,000 extra troops to Iraq, it doesn’t appear that the Middle East will have anything to smile about any time soon.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Alan MacLeod is a MintPress Staff Writer as well as an academic and writer for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. His book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting was published in April.

In the early hours of January 3, 2020, the United States military assassinated Iran’s most powerful military commander, General Qasem Soleimani.

Soleimani’s killing, accomplished by means of a drone strike in Baghdad, was done without the authorization of the Iraqi government. It thus constitutes a grave breach of Iraqi sovereignty.

It also constitutes an act of war against the state of Iran. Soleimani was a high-ranking representative of the Iranian government, reputed by many to be the second most powerful official after Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The U.S. government sought to justify Soleimani’s assassination on the basis that Soleimani was allegedly planning one or more “imminent” attacks on Americans.

According, however, to New York Times correspondent Rukmini Callimachi, who consulted with knowledgeable sources within the United States government, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin.”

As stated by Agnes Callamard, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on on Extra-Judicial Executions:

Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal.

Ms. Callamard went on to explain that:

To be justified under international human rights law, intentionally lethal or potentially lethal force can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.

Thus, Soleimani’s assassination was not only a grave breach of Iraqi sovereignty and an act of war against Iran, it was also a violation of international human rights law.

Even worse, on January 5, Iraq’s Prime Minister revealed that Trump had called him to ask him to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran with a view to defusing tensions between them and that the U.S. assassinated Soleimani at the very moment when Soleimani was carrying a response to the Saudi initiative.

In response to these shocking revelations, former U.S. Green Party leader Jill Stein tweeted:

Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment – treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission.

Undeterred by the collapse of his mendacious justification for provoking war with Iran, Trump threatened on January 5 to target Iranian cultural sites – a brazen war crime – if Iran elected to retaliate against his act of war.

Meanwhile, Iran has announced its withdrawal from the Obama-era nuclear deal, referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or “JCPOA.” The JCPOA’s future was already in grave doubt due to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the agreement in 2018 and his subsequent imposition of crushing sanctions on Iran — which are destroying Iran’s health infrastructure and causing innocent Iranians to suffer and die.

It is important to recall that, at the time of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iran was in compliance with the deal.

The mere fact that Iran entered into the deal at all was remarkable, given that its arch-nemesis in the region, Israel, possesses the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal and is the only state in the Middle East that refuses to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT).

The United States itself is a party to the NNPT but is flagrantly violating its core provisions by failing to disarm and by ‘modernizing’ its already massive nuclear arsenal.

Thus, American-Israeli demands that Iran be deprived of any and all nuclear weapons is the height of hypocrisy – a hypocrisy almost universally ignored by the Western corporate media.

Trump’s machinations are occurring within an historical context that is also routinely ignored by the Western corporate media.

In 2013, the CIA admitted that, along with British intelligence, it orchestrated a 1953 coup d’état against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq. The coup, according to declassified documents, was “conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.” Mosaddeq’s ‘crime’ was that he nationalized the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company for the benefit of his own people.

Mosaddeq was supplanted by the murderous, Western-backed Shah of Iran. Subsequent to the Shah’s demise, the United States helped the dictator Saddam Hussein to massacre Iranians with chemical weapons in a savage war that cost an estimated one million Iranian lives.

Toward the end of that war, the U.S. navy shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing all of the plane’s 290 civilian passengers.

More recently, Israel has repeatedly violated the sovereignty of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq in order to kill Iranian forces and officials who are in those countries lawfully, at the invitation of their internationally recognized governments.

Despite the appalling historical record of Western abuse of the Iranian people, Iran is routinely treated by Western officials and the corporate media as a diabolical aggressor whose expansionism must be contained at all costs.

None of this is to deny that the Iranian regime has committed severe human rights abuses, but since when did Western ‘leaders’ prioritize human rights? Even as they wax eloquent about the liberation and well-being of the Iranian people (whose economy is being strangled by American sanctions), they are arming to the teeth the monstrous Saudi autocracy. As renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky has observed, the Saudi autocracy “makes Iran look like a virtual paradise.” In 2013, Professor Chomsky denounced Western powers for “torturing” Iran for 60 years, since the 1953 CIA-led coup.

What now?

Unless the world acts quickly, retaliation by Iran, either directly or by means of proxy forces, seems inevitable. After all, how could Iran maintain any credibility as a regional power if it allowed the murder of its top general to go unanswered?

Any such retaliation would almost certainly be met with a deadly escalation by the criminally insane Trump administration, perhaps leading to all-out war.

Iran has called upon the U.N. Security Council to denounce the Trump administration’s “criminal act” and “state terrorism” (both accurate descriptions of Trump’s drone attack on the sovereign territory of Iraq), but Security Council intervention is doomed to failure: the U.S. government would undoubtedly exercise its veto power to block any Security Council action against the United States.

There may be, however, another option.

That option is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution. Adopted in 1950, Resolution 377 provides that, in cases where the Security Council, due to a lack of unanimity amongst its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue any recommendations it deems necessary in order to restore international peace and security.

Any such recommendations would not be binding upon United Nations members or the Security Council, but a strong, widely-supported denunciation of America’s latest act of criminal aggression against Iran, coupled with carefully crafted recommendations for defusing the crisis with collective measures, might just be enough to preserve Iran’s credibility as a regional power without obliging Iran to retaliate.

Even the most belligerent actors agree that an all-out war between the United States and Iran and its allies would have dire consequences for the Middle East and, indeed, the entire world.

There is nothing to lose by invoking the Uniting for Peace resolution, and everything to gain by doing so.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

According to a recent report in The Hindu Business Line, India’s intelligence agencies are investigating the role of a global investment company and international seed companies in supporting farmers organisation Shetkari Sanghatana (SS) in the distribution of illegally procured genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton seeds. The planting of such seeds is an offence under the Environment Protection Act and Seeds Act.

In May 2019, SS broke the law and freely distributed these seeds. In early January 2020, it broke the law again by distributing second generation seeds. According to the report, a senior intelligence official had told Business Line that a global investment company, with investments in seeds and agrochemicals companies, has chosen to support the farmers’ organisation.

Business Line reports that the investment company is allegedly putting pressure on the Modi government to ensure that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee fast tracks the clearance of HT seeds, so the seeds could be legally harvested and sold in the country.

In India, five high-level reports have advised against the adoption of GM crops. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (2013) was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops.

The reason why Bt cotton – to date, India’s only officially approved GM crop – made it into farmers’ fields in the first place was due to ‘approval by contamination’. Bt cotton was discovered in 2001 growing on thousands of hectares in Gujarat. In March 2002, it was approved for commercial cultivation.

The pro-GMO lobby has again resorted to such tactics. The 2010 moratorium on Bt brinjal was implemented because science won out against a regulatory process that lacked competency, possessed endemic conflicts of interest and demonstrated a lack of expertise in GM risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts.

As we have seen with the relentless push to get GM mustard commercialised, the problems persist. Now, to justify breaking the law, we are seeing unscientific claims and well-worn industry-inspired soundbites about GM crops: political posturing unsupported by evidence to try to sway the policy agenda in favour of GM.

Drawing on previous peer-reviewed evidence, a 2018 paper in the journal Current Science by renowned scientists PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan concluded that Bt crops and HT crops are unsustainable and globally have not decreased the need for toxic chemical pesticides, the reason for these GM crops in the first place. 

We need to look at GM objectively because plenty of evidence indicates it poses risks or is not beneficial and that non-GM alternatives are a better option. Moreover, many things that scientists are trying to achieve with GM have already been surpassed by means of conventional breeding.

Those behind the distribution and planting of illegal seeds talk about helping the farmer. But the real agenda is to open-up India to GM and get farmers hooked on a corporate money-spinning GM seed-chemical treadmill.

The watchdog GMWatch recently produced an article about how hired public relations agencies and key individuals with firm links to the biotechnology sector are attempting to deceive the public and policy makers. The article’s author, Jonathan Matthews, notes that in June 2019 the pro-GMO campaigner Mark Lynas began talking up what he claimed was to be “the world’s first pro-GMO protest”.

The term ‘astroturfing’ is the process by which orchestrated marketing and public relations campaigns are presented as emanating from grassroots participants or ordinary members of the public rather than from powerful corporate interests. Lynas, a well-known industry lobbyist, said the ‘protest’ would involve Indian farmers planting banned GM seeds in what he called “Gandhi-style civil disobedience”. This attention-grabbing campaign was being led by SS, which Lynas described as “very grass roots”.

According to Matthews, SS is not a mass movement of grassroots farmers but an allegedly well-funded fringe group created by the late Sharad Joshi, a right-wing economist and member of the Advisory Board of the Monsanto-backed World Agricultural Forum, an organisation whose founder and first chairman was for many years Monsanto’s director of public policy.

Joshi was also Chairman of Shivar Agroproducts Ltd, says Matthews, but he is best remembered for his ultra-libertarian ideology, his links to certain farmers groups and the political party (Swatantra Bharat Paksh) that he founded – all vehicles for promoting his free market fundamentalism.

Matthews says:

“Lynas was not the first to present Shetkari Sanghatana as representing ordinary Indian farmers. A full two decades earlier, the European biotech industry and their PR firm Burson-Marsteller brought some of Shetkari Sanghatana’s leading lights to Europe to try and counter the view that Indian farmers opposed GMO crops. To that end, they were toured around five different countries by the industry’s lobby group, EuropaBio, which in a press release presented this free market fringe group, which is largely confined to the state of Maharashtra, as ‘the mainstream farmers’ movement in India’.”

Matthews adds that the US is the biotech industry’s chief propaganda hub for promoting wide-ranging fakery to the world. Referring to the illegal planting of HT cotton seeds and SS, he says:

“Among the notable cheerleaders promoting the protesters’ cause were the Gates-backed GMO propaganda outfit The Alliance for Science, which pays Mark Lynas to lobby for GMOs; CS Prakash of AgBioWorld, who has long served as a conduit for Monsanto disinformation; Bayer-consultant and Monsanto collaborator Kevin Folta, who made a podcast on the protests with CS Prakash…”

Matthews piece, ‘Fake Farmer Willi part of an international fake parade’, provides details of the various characters and strategies involved in faking it for the biotech industry, not just in India but across the world.   

As a market for GM proprietary seeds, chemical inputs and agricultural technology and machinery, India is vast. The potential market for herbicide growth alone for instance is huge: sales could now have reached USD 800 million with scope for even greater expansion, especially with the illegal push to get HT seeds planted.

With GM crops largely shut out of Europe and many countries reluctant to embrace the technology, Western agro-biotech conglomerates are desperate to seek out and expand into untapped (foreign) markets to maintain profitability. India presents potential rich pickings. And this is the bottom line: GM is not about ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the masses’ (myths that have been deconstructed time and again). It is about hard-nose interests endeavouring to displace existing systems of production and capturing and exploiting markets by any means possible – not least fakery and deception.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.