This morning (January 7) Pompeo, the embarrassment we suffer as our Secretary of State, was on TV promising to “confront and contain” Iran.  A political general was featured declaring that he had seen the intelligence reports and was certain that the murder of Soleimani had stopped an attack.  If the general saw any such “intelligence” it was fixed intelligence to produce the desired result. Regardless, Soleimani’s murder was a crime and an act of war. The previous day Pompeo suggested that Trump might have to kill some more Iranian leaders, because Obama had emboldened Iran by appeasing them.  This is just another of Pompeo’s false accusations.  Obama accepted the agreement that Iran would not enrich uranium to the extent required by weapons.  Inspectors have verified that Iran has kept the agreement.

It was Trump, pushed by Israel’s agents, the neoconservatives, who broke the agreement and restarted the conflict with Iran by issuing threat after threat.

As I pointed out here and here, with all these threats in place all Israel and its neoconservative agents have to do is to orchestrate a false flag attack and blame Iran.  As Israel wants America at war with Iran, as the neoconservatives want America at war with Iran, as Pompeo and Pence are rapture-evangelicals who selfishly want the end of the world so they can be wafted up to Heaven, and as Trump’s supporters in the public have been conditioned to regard Iran as a terrorist enemy, Israel can launch the Third World War whenever Netanyahu desires.

Trump, Pompeo, political generals, rapture evangelism, and presstitutes are simultaneously discrediting the US government, the US military, Christianity, and giving Israel the power to take the United States to war, a power that it will be difficult for Israel not to use.

The only certain way to prevent the outbreak of war is for Putin to take control out of Israel’s hands. Putin can do this by forming a defensive alliance between Russia and Iran and any other countries that will join.  Once an attack on Iran is identical to an attack on Russia, the situation is immediately calmed.

With war staring us in the face, some reject the preventative measure on the grounds that alliances cause war. In this instance it is the alliance between Israel and the neoconservatives that is causing a war.  The solution is a countervailing alliance that brings the warmongers to their senses.  It is the absence of countervailing power that makes the outbreak of a dangerous war so likely.

It is really up to Putin.  If war breaks out, Russia will be dragged into it regardless.  Better for Russia to prevent war by having Putin take charge.  If Putin fails to act when his hour is at hand, he also will bear responsibility for the war that is looming on the horizon.

*

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. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Leadership Is Discredited — Will a New Leader Step Forward?

Video: Trump Calls Upon Iran: “We Should Work Together”

January 8th, 2020 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

On January 8, President Trump spoke from the White House following the Iran missile attack against two US military bases in Iraq in the night of January 8.

While US and Iraqi sources said “there were no known casualties” (CNN) (which is doubtful)  Iranian sources (Fars News) point to 80 US servicemen killed.

More than a dozen missiles were fired. According to the Guardian:

Al-Asad airbase in Iraq’s Anbar province was hit 17 times, including by two ballistic missiles that failed to detonate, according to the Iraqi government. A further five missiles were targeted at a base in the northern city of Erbil in the assault, which began at about 1.30am local time on Wednesday (10.30pm GMT).

The following Video was released by Iran TV

The number of casualties remains to be established.   Reports also suggest that Iran “intentionally missed areas with Americans”.  According to NPR, the strikes were very precise. Moreover, it would appear that the US air defense system did not prevent the missiles from reaching their targets.

Karako says he believes the strike deliberately avoided areas that house personnel. Given the apparent precision of the missiles used: “If they wanted a bunch of casualties they could have done something different,” he says.

Trump in his speech said that there were no casualties.

“No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties. All of our soldiers are safe and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.”

Is that a facing-saving statement?

It should be noted that the Iraqi authorities were informed by Iran regarding the attacks. And according to reports Iraqi officials advised the US military, giving them time to evacuate military personnel.

According to both Iranian (as well as Western sources), the attack also caused severe damage to a number of drones, helicopters and military equipment. An NPR report points to substantial damage:

Satellite photographs taken by the commercial company Planet Labs for the Middlebury Institute of International Studies showed what appeared to be at least five destroyed structures at Al Asad. David Schmerler, an analyst at the Middlebury Institute, told NPR: “Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead centre.” (indicating that part of the military facilities had been destroyed, emphasis added)

 

The NPR report confirms through satellite images extensive damage, pointing also to failures in the defence system

The Ayn al-Asad airbase. Source: Bing Maps

Retaliation: Punitive Bombings

Trump in his speech did not mention any form of retaliation or punitive bombing following Iran’s missile strike.

New economic sanctions are envisaged:  “the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions”. 

VIDEO. See full transcript below

Tehran reports that the 15 missiles which hit the US Ayn al-Assad military base were not intercepted by the US Army’s radar system, which (if confirmed) reflects a weakness on the part of the US defense system.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg.

The unspoken truth is that several of America’s military installations in the Middle East are “sitting ducks”. And this is recognised by US military analysts.

US military facilities in the Middle East are vulnerable, including USCENTOM’s forward base at the al Udeid US Air Force base in Qatar which is de facto located in enemy territory. Since 2017, Qatar has become a staunch ally of Iran.

Military analysts now admit that in the case of a conflict with Iran  The Al-Udeid base in Qatar would be an immediate target. “The base’s defence system is said to be ill-equipped to defend itself against the low-flying cruise missiles and drones…” Al Udeid is America’s largest US Airforce base in the Middle East.

Following the assassination of General Suleimani and Trump’s announcement that the US would bomb 52 targets inside Iran, Tehran stated that it was considering as well as identifying  “100 targets … in the region for America and its allies”. (see below map of US military bases in the Middle East)

Strikes on these 100 targets are contemplated in the case of US retaliation in the form of punitive bombings ordered by President Trump.

This 100 targets announcement no doubt had a bearing on Trump’s January 8  White House speech.

President Donald Trump placed emphasis on America’s achievements in combating ISIS (without of course acknowledging that ISIS was a creation of the US, funded by Washington and its allies).

At the end of his White House speech he stated that ISIS is also an enemy of Iran. And that “We should Work Together”.

Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters have been killed or captured during my administration. ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.
.
Ironically, Trump had ordered the assassination of  General Soleimani who played a central role in countering ISIS-Daesh and Al Qaeda terrorists in both Iraq and Syria. In this regard, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC) under the helm of General Soleimani consisted in waging a real counter-terrorism campaign against ISIS-Daesh mercenaries, who from the outset were funded, trained and recruited by the US and its allies. And that’s why they killed him?
 .
And Trump completes his White House speech on a “positive note”:
Finally to the people and leaders of Iran, we want you to have a future, and a great future, one that you deserve, one of prosperity at home in harmony with the nations of the world.
.
The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.

Does this constitute a turning point in Middle East Geopolitics?

A complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

 

.Not a word on Israel in Trump’s speech.

 


TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SPEECH

Source: White House

As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Good morning. I’m pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases. 

Our great American forces are prepared for anything. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.

No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well. I salute the incredible skill and courage of America’s men and women in uniform.

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.

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.

He trained terrorist armies, including Hezbollah, launching terrorist strikes against civilian targets. He fueled bloody civil wars all across the region. He viciously wounded and murdered thousands of U.S. troops, including the planting of roadside bombs that maim and dismember their victims.

Soleimani directed the recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq that badly wounded four service members and killed one American, and he 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.

Soleimani’s hands were drenched in both American and Iranian blood. He should have been terminated long ago. By removing Soleimani, we have sent a powerful message to terrorists: If you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people.

As we continue to evaluate options in response to Iranian aggression, the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.

In recent months alone, Iran has seized ships in international waters, fired an unprovoked strike on Saudi Arabia, and shot down two U.S. drones.

Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013, and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. Instead of saying “thank you” to the United States, they chanted “death to America.” In fact, they chanted “death to America” the day the agreement was signed.

Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal, and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration. The regime also greatly tightened the reins on their own country, even recently killing 1,500 people at the many protests that are taking place all throughout Iran.

The very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway, and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout. Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism. The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China to recognize this reality.

They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal -– or JCPOA –- and we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place. We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper, and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential. Iran can be a great country.

Peace and stability cannot prevail in the Middle East as long as Iran continues to foment violence, unrest, hatred, and war. The civilized world must send a clear and unified message to the Iranian regime: Your campaign of terror, murder, mayhem will not be tolerated any longer. It will not be allowed to go forward.

Today, I am going to ask NATO to become much more involved in the Middle East process. Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accompliments [accomplishments] changed our strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And options in the Middle East became available. 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.

The American military has been completely rebuilt under my administration, at a cost of $2.5 trillion. U.S. Armed Forces are stronger than ever before. Our missiles are big, powerful, accurate, lethal, and fast. Under construction are many hypersonic missiles.

The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it. We do not want to use it. American strength, both military and economic, is the best deterrent.

Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for so much death, including the mass beheadings of Christians, Muslims, and all who stood in his way. He was a monster. Al-Baghdadi was trying again to rebuild the ISIS caliphate, and failed.

Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters have been killed or captured during my administration. ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.

Finally, to the people and leaders of Iran: We want you to have a future and a great future — one that you deserve, one of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world. The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.

Finally, to the people and leaders of Iran: We want you to have a future and a great future — one that you deserve, one of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world. The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.

I want to thank you, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you

 

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Video: Trump Calls Upon Iran: “We Should Work Together”

Iran Targets US Base of Ain Al-Assad in Iraq

January 8th, 2020 by Syria News

Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Muhammad Hussein Baqeri confirmed today that any new evil American action will face a more resolute response.

In a statement today, Baqeri said that the operation targeting the American base of Ain Al-Assad early in the morning confirms the military capabilities of the Iranian armed forces.

For his part, Spokesman for the Iranian government Ali Rabei said that Iran “does not seek war ,  but any other American aggression will face a more severe response.”

“At least 80 American soldiers were killed when the Islamic Revolutionary Guards targeted the American base of Ain Al-Asad”, Fars News Agency quoted.

[The number of casualties remains to be established, Western reports indicate other figures]

The source added that the attack caused severe damage to a number of drones, helicopters and many military equipment at the base, pointing out that 15 missiles hit Ain al-Assad base and none of them were intercepted by the US Army’s radar system.

He pointed out that 100 targets have been identified in the region for America and its allies, and they are under monitoring and observation.

Spokesman for the Guardian Council Abbas Ali Kadkhadai said that the missile attack carried out by the forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Forces on the bases of the American army in Iraq is a legitimate defense against the American aggression, adding that these operations are approved by the UN Charter as well as by international laws.

For his part, spokesperson for the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Islamic Shura Council  Sayyid Hussain Naqawi Hosseini  said that the missile attack is a response to American crimes. “We warned allied countries of America in the region not to allow their lands to be used to strike Iran, as our response will be in accordance with the UN Charter.”

“America’s allegations about its force and the inability of anyone to penetrate it were shattered by Iran’s retaliation”, Naqawi Hosseini.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iran Targets US Base of Ain Al-Assad in Iraq

Trump’s Assassination Disaster

January 8th, 2020 by Daniel McAdams

Is Trump yet ruing the day he lent his ear to the siren songs of the Iran-obsessed neocons? One can almost imagine the president, sitting in the makeshift situation room at Mar-a-Lago just a few days ago surrounded by the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Esper, and his Pentagon advisors who breathlessly present him an “opportunity” to kick the Iranian leadership in the face and also dismantle an operation in the works to attack US military and civilian personnel in the region.

All he had to do was sign off on the assassination of Gen. Qassim Soleimani, a man he likely had never heard of a couple of years ago but who, he was told, was “responsible for killing hundreds of Americans” in Iraq.

“Soleimani did 9/11!” – Pence helpfully yet insanely chimed in.

“You’re not a wimp like Obama, who refused to assassinate this terrorist,” he was probably told. “You’re decisive, a real leader. This one blow will change the entire calculus of the Middle East,” they likely told him. “If you take out Soleimani, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

(Actually, that last one was from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress in 2002 where he promised the US that “If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” Brilliant forecasting, Bibi.)

As could be expected, the cover story cooked up by the neocons and signed off on by Trump started taking water the moment it was put to sea.

Soleimani was not traveling like a man plotting a complicated, multi-country assault on US troops in the region. No false mustaches or James Bond maneuvers – he was flying commercial and openly disembarked at the terminal of Baghdad International Airport. He was publicly met and greeted by an Iraqi delegation and traveled relatively unguarded from the airport.

Until a US drone vaporized him and his entire entourage – which included a senior Iraqi military officer.

The furious Iraqi acting-Prime Minister Mahdi immediately condemned the attack in the strongest terms, openly calling for the expulsion of the US forces – who remain in Iraq ostensibly to fight an ISIS that has long been defeated but, de facto, to keep the beachhead clear for a US attack on Iran.

Arguing for the expulsion of the US in a special parliamentary session held on January 5th, Mahdi spilled the truth about Soleimani’s mission in Iraq. It was not to plot the killing of US troops: it was to deliver a response from Iran to a peace overture from the Saudis, the result of talks that were being facilitated by Iraq.

And the US side knew about the mission and had, according to press reports, encouraged Iraq to facilitate the Iran/Saudi talks.

Did the US neocons and Pentagon warhawks like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mike Milley knowingly exploit what they anticipated would be relatively lax security for a peace mission between Iran and Saudi Arabia to assassinate Gen. Soleimani (with collateral damage being Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units)?

And, to drill a little deeper, which US “allies” would want to blow up any chance of peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Factions within Saudi Arabia, where a fierce power struggle rages below the surface? No doubt. In Israel, where Netanyahu continues fighting for his political life (and freedom) with his entire political career built around mayhem and destruction? Sure. It’s not like Trump has ever been able to say “no” to the endless demands of either Bibi or his Saudi counterpart in crime MBS.

Who knows, maybe Trump knew all along and was in on it. Make war on a peace mission.

Whatever the case, as always happens the neocons have steered things completely off the rails. The cover story is in tatters, and the Iraqi democracy – for which we’ve been ostensibly fighting for 16 years with a loss of US life in the thousands and of Iraqi life in the millions – voted on Sunday that US forces must leave Iraq.

We destroyed Iraq to “give them democracy,” but they had the nerve to exercise that democracy to ask us to leave!

Iran could not believe its luck in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, when it soon became clear that Iraq would fall into their hands. Likewise, it appears that the longstanding fervent wish of the Iranian leadership – the end of the US occupation of Iraq (and Syria) – will soon be fulfilled thanks to Trump’s listening to the always toxic advice of the neocon warmongers.

Can Trump recover from this near-fatal mistake? It is possible. But with Trump’s Twitter finger threatening Iraq with “big big” sanctions and an even bigger bill to cover the cost of our invasion and destruction of their country, it appears that his ability to learn from his mistakes is limited. A bit less time on Twitter and a lot less time with the people who hate his guts – Pompeo, Pence, Graham, etc. – might help.

Meanwhile…will Iran avenge Soleimani’s murder directly, or using asymmetrical means?

Trump said of his decision to assassinate a top official from a country with which we are not technically at war, “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.” But it doesn’t work that way. When you kill another country’s top military leadership you have definitely started a war.

What remains to be seen is how it will play out.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Assassination Disaster

The Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Soleimani, Iraqi deputy PMU commander Muhandis, and others with them was a flagrant UN Charter breach — an act of war against both countries.

International law affirms the right of self-defense in response to a preemptive attack on a nation’s territory, including under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

It prohibits one nation from attacking another except in self-defense, stating:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

US preemptive strikes on Iraqi territory against Kata’ib Hezbollah on December 29, followed days later on January 3 by killing Soleimani and Muhandis, was naked aggression by any standard — potentially opening the gates of hell for greater regional war than already.

Aggression by one country against another is the highest of high crimes, all others paling in comparison.

UN General Assembly Res. 3314 calls aggression the “most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force.”

It defined aggression as “the (unjustifiable) use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

The Nuremberg Tribunal called aggression the supreme international crime against peace.

In response to the Trump regime’s assassination of General Soleimani, Iran promised a strong response.

Pre-dawn Wednesday it came. Iranian missiles struck two US military bases in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling retaliation a “slap in the face” to the US.

Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted the following:

“Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.”

“We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”

According to Iranian media, about 35 missiles were launched by the IGRC at US bases in Ayn al-Asad and Erbil, along with rockets fired on US targets in Iraq.

Tehran called the operation “Martyr Soleimani,” intended as “hard revenge” for his assassination by imperial USA, an aggressor state.

Retaliation came after Khamenei warned that “harsh vengeance awaits the (US) criminals.”

No official word of casualties or damage on US bases so far was reported. Reuters cited “Iranian state television,” saying at least 80 “American terrorists” were killed, Pentagon helicopters and military equipment “severely damaged.”

Iran’s IRGC reportedly said 100 other US targets are on its target list to attack if further Trump regime aggression is forthcoming.

An IRGC statement said further US aggression against Iran will incur “more painful and crushing responses,” including against Israel.

Iranian General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri said henceforth, “any new evil act by the US will face a stronger and more crushing response with a broader range,” adding:

“The time has come for the evil authorities of the United States to realize the Islamic Republic of Iran’s capabilities in a greater extent of global geography, adopt a principled approach, and pull the forces of their terrorist army out of the region as soon as possible.”

By letter to UN Secretary General Guterres, Iranian envoy to the world body Majid Takht Ravanchi said “in conformity with international law and in exercising its inherent right to self-defense, Iran will take all necessary and proportionate measures against any threat or use of force,” citing UN Charter Article 51.

Read his full letter through this link:

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/01/08/2177523/iran-reserves-right-to-self-defense-against-us-envoy-tells-un-chief

Following Iran’s retaliation against US aggression, Ayatollah Khamenei said the following on national television:

“(O)ur revenge…was carried out last night…What is important in addition to retaliation is that military operations do not suffice,” adding:

“It is important to end the US corrupting presence in the region.”

“Americans are insisting on bringing corruption and destruction into our dear Iran.”

“Talks of sitting down at the negotiating table is a preface to interventions, which must end.”

“Regional nations do not accept the US presence and its meddling measures.”

Here’s where things now stand. Iran retaliated strongly to Trump regime aggression.

He and hardliners surrounding him have a choice — either back off from greater conflict or strike again and risk the mother of all regional wars against a nation able to hit back hard against US facilities and its allies, notably Israel and the Saudis.

The following IRGC statement should be taken seriously, stating:

“We are warning all US allies who gave their bases to its terrorist army that any territory that in any way becomes the starting point of hostile and aggressive acts against the Islamic Republic of Iran will be targeted.”

Iran designated the Pentagon a terrorist organization. Henceforth it’ll likely be treated as one in response to further US aggression against the Islamic Republic if launched.

On Press TV Tuesday in response to the question of whether Soleimani’s assassination was the beginning of the end of the US presence in the Middle East, I cited Winston Churchill’s November 1942 remark during WW II after a victory by allied forces against the Nazis at El Alamein, Egypt.

Here’s the quote I paraphrased, saying:

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Escalation? Iranian Missiles Strike Two US Military Bases in Iraq, “Slap in the Face” to the US, according to Tehran

Reciprocal Escalation! Out of Control

January 8th, 2020 by Hasan Abu Nimah

Crises in the Middle East are by no means unusual. Instability in our region has, for decades, been the rule rather than the exception. But the current showdown between the US and Iran is nearing serious breaking point, if not an all out war, that may engulf the entire region, and beyond. The gravity of the consequences of such a war have been the main reason for restraint so far. The question is whether or not restraint is going to be possible this time.

The current US-Iran crisis is not an independent event. It is a culmination of decades-long polarisation between two regional hostile parties: Israel on one side and Iran on the other.

Along the way there have been severe political tensions, crises, bitter disputes and bloody wars. The core issue, therefore, is the Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to resolve this century-long conflict is the root cause of the continued instability, radicalisation, violence and destructive Middle East wars.

Israel considers the post-1997 Iran as an archenemy and an existential threat. Right from the beginning, the Iranian Islamic Revolution has been on the side of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and independence. With time, Iranian support turned more committed and, from Israel’s view, much more dangerous: arming and financing Hizbollah and Hamas, helping the regime in Syria to survive a long and a deadly civil war and expanding in Iraq and Yemen.

While there was hope, in Israel and its supporters’ circles, that the Iranian influence would be undermined by sanctions and other forms of international pressures, Iran in fact, again from Israel’s view, was rewarded in 2015 by the Nuclear agreement with the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPO). This was a severe blow to Israel, which, with the US during the Obama Administration, tried desperately to prevent the deal, but failed.

The Nuclear deal was a historic achievement that created a much healthier political climate between Iran and the rest of the world, with the exception of Israel. Israel did not give up on its efforts against the deal until it finally succeeded in gaining ground against it with President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement soon after his election, and his imposition of severe sanctions against Iran as well as against third parties that continued to deal with Iran. The other signatories opposed the withdrawal and decided to remain committed, but they are not doing enough to save it.

The US offered to renegotiate the nuclear agreement’s terms by introducing restrictions on Iran’s spreading influence in the region, and by cutting down its missile capabilities. Both conditions were designed to meet Israel’s concerns and to address Israel’s case against Iran. Iran refused to negotiate under pressure and while the imposed US sanctions remained in place. They also rejected the idea of compromising their sovereign rights with respect to foreign policy and military abilities.

Israel was hoping that the Syrian crisis would topple the Assad regime, end the Iranian presence in Syria and sever the roots of supply to Hizbollah. The opposite had actually happened with Iran getting closer to Israel’s borders and the roots of supply to Hizbollah in Lebanon getting more secure. Continued Israeli air raids on positions in Syria during the past five years, on alleged convoys of arms shipments to Hizbollah and later on Iraqi Hizbollah positions in Iraq, had hardly changed the situation.

This is the background to the recent crisis in Iraq. By blocking any possible settlement of the Palestinian/Arab-Israeli conflict, by its continued occupation and creeping colonisation of Palestinian and Syrian lands and by treating the Palestinians in Gaza and the West bank so harshly and inhumanely for more than five decades, Israel is constantly enlarging its circle of enemies. The US would better help Israel and better serve its long term interests by encouraging it to end the occupation, to recognise legitimate Palestinian rights in accordance with the provisions of international law and dozens of UN resolutions on the conflict and to stop its aggression. Israel missed great opportunities for living in peace and normalising its relations with all its neighbours, near and far. It still does.

Unfortunately, instead, the US is encouraging Israel’s intransigence by recognising Jerusalem as its eternal capital, by recognising Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and by declaring the illegal Israeli colonies on Palestinian lands legal; in addition to other unlawful measures. The inevitable result will be that the US will end up equally blamed for Israel’s actions. Consequently, the road to any reasonable settlement of the conflict remains blocked while the causes of regional trouble thrive.

The recent tensions in Iraq cannot be separated from what is happening around the region. Israeli attack on Iraqi Hizbollah positions last August must have caused reprisals elsewhere in Iraq. The chain reaction continued with a rocket attack by Iraqi elements on an American base near Kirkuk and the death of an American contractor. That was followed by American bombing of an Iraqi militia group, killing 25 and injuring fifty. Retaliating, angry Iraqi crowds, including militia members, stormed the US embassy in Baghdad, breaching its security walls, burning security posts and causing enormous damage to the external structure. They did not reach the main building or harm Americans. Though an alarming escalation, the crowd, which threatened to stay there indefinitely and built tents, decided to evacuate the place completely the next day upon wise advice from their leaders, who clearly opposed escalation.

That was a very suitable moment to break the spiraling cycle of violence which brought relief, until the US decided to assassinate Iranian military general Qassem Suleimani on Iraqi territory, plunging the entire region once again into the very deep abyss of endless violence and possibly larger war. No one can predict where this unnecessary, miscalculated provocation will take the region. The only certainty is that the situation is extremely grave and dangerous. The assassination was widely criticised, even in the US.

“Trump lit a fire by exiting the Iran Deal and poured gasoline on it by Killing Soleimani”, wrote Gary Sick in the Business Insider on January 4.

One would hope to see the UN acting to defuse such a crisis, but the UN is completely absent. One would hope that a major world power would drop the torch and hold an extinguisher instead, to put out fires as they appear any where in our world, not start ones.

Hasan Abu Nimah is the former permanent representative of Jordan at the United Nations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Reciprocal Escalation! Out of Control

Os Acordos McCloy-Zorin, 20 de Setembro de 1961

January 7th, 2020 by Valerian Alexandrovich Zorin

DECLARAÇÃO CONJUNTA DE PRINCÍPIOS ACORDADOS PARA NEGOCIAÇÕES DE DESARMAMENTO

Os Estados Unidos e a URSS concordaram recomendar os seguintes princípios, como base para futuras negociações multilaterais sobre desarmamento e exortaram outros Estados a cooperarem na obtenção de um acordo antecipado sobre desarmamento geral e completo num mundo pacífico, de acordo com estes princípios:

DESARMAMENTO SEGURO E SOLUÇÃO PACÍFICA DOS LITÍGIOS… GUERRA, NUNCA MAIS.

O objectivo das negociações é alcançar um acordo sobre um programa que assegure:

Que esse desarmamento seja geral e completo e a guerra não seja mais um instrumento para resolver problemas internacionais, e

Que esse desarmamento seja acompanhado pelo estabelecimento de procedimentos transparentes para a solução pacífica de discórdias e medidas efectivas para a manutenção da paz, de acordo com os princípios da Carta das Nações Unidas.

RETENÇÃO DE FORÇAS NÃO NUCLEARES PARA GARANTIR A ORDEM NACIONAL E UMA FORÇA DE PAZ DA ONU

O programa para o desarmamento geral e completo responsabilizar-se-á para que os Estados tenham à sua disposição apenas os armamentos, forças, instalações e estabelecimentos não nucleares que forem considerados necessários para manter a ordem interna de cada Estado e para proteger a segurança pessoal dos cidadãos; e que os Estados deverão apoiar e fornecer mão-de-obra para uma força de paz das Nações Unidas.

TODAS AS FORÇAS MILITARES, BASES, DEPÓSITOS DE ARMAS E DESPESAS MILITARES SERÃO CANCELADAS

Para esse fim, o programa de desarmamento geral e completo deve conter as disposições necessárias, em relação à estrutura militar de cada nação para:

O desmantelamento das forças armadas, o desmantelamento dos estabelecimentos militares, incluindo bases, a cessação da produção de armamentos, bem como a sua eliminação ou conversão para usos pacíficos;

A eliminação de todos os depósitos de armas nucleares, químicas, bacteriológicas e outras armas de destruição em massa, e a cessação da produção de tais armas;

A eliminação de todos os meios de transporte de armas de destruição em massa;

A abolição das organizações e instituições destinadas a organizar os esforços militares dos Estados, a cessação do treino militar e o encerramento de todas as instituições de treino militar; e

O cancelamento das despesas militares.

EXECUÇÃO POR ETAPAS COM DATAS ESTABELECIDAS, COM CUMPRIMENTO E VERIFICAÇÃO ACORDADAS PARA CADA FASE

O programa de desarmamento deve ser concretizado numa sequência acordada por etapas, até à sua conclusão, com cada medida e etapa executadas dentro de prazos especificados. A transição para uma etapa subsequente no processo de desarmamento, deve ocorrer após uma revisão das medidas de execução incluídas na etapa anterior e uma decisão de que todas essas medidas foram efectivadas e verificadas e que quaisquer critérios adicionais de verificação necessários para medidas no próximo estágio, quando apropriados, estejam prontos para funcionar.

EQUILÍBRIO EQUITATIVO EM CADA ESTÁGIO, SEM VANTAGENS PARA QUALQUER ESTADO E COM SEGURANÇA PARA TODOS.

Todas as medidas de desarmamento geral e completo devem ser equilibradas, de modo que, em nenhuma fase da concretização do Tratado, qualquer Estado ou grupo de Estados, obtenha vantagem militar e que a segurança seja garantida igualmente para todos.

CONTROLO RIGOROSO PARA GARANTIR O CUMPRIMENTO DE TODAS AS PARTES E A CRIAÇÃO DE UMA ORGANIZAÇÃO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARMAMENTO, COM INSPECTORES QUE TENHAM ACESSO SEM RESTRIÇÕES EM TODA A PARTE, SEM QUE HAJA PROIBIÇÃO PARA VERIFICAÇÃO COMPLETA

Todas as medidas de desarmamento devem ser efectivadas, do começo ao fim, sob controlo internacional rigoroso e eficaz, a fim de fornecer uma garantia permanente de que todas as partes estão a cumprir as suas obrigações. Durante e após a realização do desarmamento geral e completo, deve ser exercido um controlo total. A natureza e a extensão de cada controlo depende dos requisitos para verificação das medidas de desarmamento que estão a ser executadas em cada etapa. Deve ser criada no âmbito das Nações Unidas, uma organização internacional de desarmamento, que inclua todas as partes do acordo, para concretizar o controlo e a inspecção do desarmamento. Esta organização internacional de desarmamento e os seus inspectores devem ter acesso ilimitado, sem qualquer proibição, a todos os locais, consoante seja necessário para fins de verificação efectiva.

O PROCESSO DE DESARMAMENTO DEVE SER ACOMPANHADO POR MEDIDAS PARA MANTER A PAZ E UMA FORÇA DE PAZ DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS SUFICIENTEMENTE FORTE PARA DETERMINAR OU SUPRIMIR QUALQUER AMEAÇA OU USO DE ARMAS, EM VIOLAÇÃO DA CARTA DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS.

O progresso no desarmamento deve ser acompanhado por medidas para fortalecer as instituições, a fim de manter a paz e a solução de conflitos internacionais por meios pacíficos. Durante e após a efectivação do programa de desarmamento geral e completo, devem ser tomadas, de acordo com os princípios da Carta das Nações Unidas, as medidas necessárias para manter a paz e a segurança internacionais, incluindo as obrigações dos Estados de colocar à disposição das Nações Unidas, a mão-de-obra acordada, necessária para que uma força de paz internacional esteja equipada com os tipos de armamentos acordados. Os acordos para o uso dessa força devem assegurar que as Nações Unidas possam, efectivamente, impedir, suprimir e ameaçar ou usar armas, que transgridam os propósitos e princípios das Nações Unidas.

OS ESTADOS DEVEM EMPENHAR-SE NUM ACORDO MAIS ALARGADO, O MAIS CEDO POSSÍVEL, CONTINUANDO A TENTAR CONSEGUIR MAIS ACORDOS LIMITADOS QUE FACILITARÃO E FORMARÃO PARTE DO PROGRAMA GERAL DO DESARMAMENTO GERAL, COMPLETO E SEGURO, NUM MUNDO PACÍFICO

Os Estados participantes nas negociações devem procurar alcançar e concretizar o acordo, o mais amplo possível, na data mais próxima possível. Os esforços devem continuar sem interrupção até que seja alcançado um acordo sobre o programa total e devem ser empreendidos esforços para garantir um rápido acordo e a execução das medidas de desarmamento, sem prejudicar o progresso do acordo sobre o programa total e de maneira que essas medidas facilitem e façam parte desse programa.

*****

Em 20 de Setembro de 1961, na cidade de Belgrado, os Estados Unidos e a União Soviética assinaram os Acordos McCloy-Zorin. Este acordo notável, que exige “Que Não Haja Mais Guerra”, estabeleceu as directrizes não só para o desarmamento nuclear, mas também para o desarmamento completo e geral de todas as nações do mundo. Se for encontrada vontade política para concretizá-lo, as ideias contidas nestes Acordos ainda podem ser usadas para atingir este objectivo.

Valerian Alexandrovich Zorin (russo: Валериан Александрович Зорин; 1 de Janeiro de 1902 – 14 de Janeiro de 1986) foi o diplomata soviético mais recordado por seu famoso confronto com Adlai Stevenson, em 25 de Outubro de 1962, durante a crise de mísseis cubanos.

Vida e carreira

Zorin nasceu em Novocherkassk. Depois de ingressar no Partido Comunista Soviético, em 1922, Zorin ocupou uma posição administrativa na Comissão da Cidade de Moscovo e na Comissão Central do Komsomol, até 1932. Em 1935, formou-se no Instituto Comunista de Educação (Высший коммунистический институт просвещн). De 1935 a 1941, Zorin trabalhou em várias tarefas do Partido e como professor. De 1941 a 1944, trabalhou no Comissariado do Povo para os Negócios Estrangeiros. De 1945 a 1947, Zorin exerceu o cargo de Embaixador Soviético na Checoslováquia. Em 1948, ajudou a organizar o golpe de Estado checoslovaco. De 1947 a 1955 e, novamente, de 1956 a 1965, foi Ministro Adjunto dos Negócios Estrangeiros da União Soviética. Ao mesmo tempo, ocupou outros cargos, incluindo o de representante soviético permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU, de 1952 a 1953. De 1955 a 1956, Zorin foi o primeiro Embaixador soviético na República Federal da Alemanha. De 1956 a 1965, representou, novamente, a União Soviética no Conselho de Segurança da ONU, que levou ao seu famoso confronto com Adlai Stevenson, em 25 de Outubro de 1962, durante a Crise dos Mísseis em Cuba.

Após o assassinato de John F. Kennedy, em 1963, Zorin divulgou uma declaração controversa sobre as possíveis causas do assassinato do Presidente, pondo de lado a crença de que Kennedy havia sido morto por um fanático esquerdista, Lee Harvey Oswald e, em vez disso, especulou que poderia ter sido um crime resultante das visões progressistas de Kennedy sobre os direitos civis e sobre a “gentalha” da América do Sul.

De 1965 a 1971, Zorin exerceu o cargo de Embaixador Soviético, em França. Em 1971, tornou-se Embaixador em missões especiais, no Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros da União Soviética. No 22º e 23º Congresso do PCUS, em 1961 e 1966, Zorin foi eleito para a Comissão Central do PCUS.

John Jay McCloy (31 de Março de 1895 – 11 de Março de 1989) advogado, diplomata, banqueiro e consultor presidencial americano. Exerceu o cargo de Secretário Assistente da Guerra durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, sob o comando de Henry Stimson, ajudando a lidar com questões como a  sabotagem alemã, tensões políticas na Campanha do Norte de África e opôs-se aos bombardeios atómicos de Hiroshima e Nagasaki. Após a guerra, ocupou os cargos de presidente do Banco Mundial, Alto Comissário dos EUA para a Alemanha, presidente do Chase Manhattan Bank, presidente do Conselho dos Negócios Estrangeiros, membro da Comissão Warren e destacado conselheiro de todos os presidentes dos Estados Unidos, de Franklin D. Roosevelt a Ronald Reagan.

Final da guerra com o Japão

McCloy tentou convencer o Presidente Truman de que não era aconselhável uma invasão do Japão. Em meados de 1945, o Imperador japonês começou a procurar maneiras de livrar-se da guerra, chegando a pedir à União Soviética que mediasse uma paz entre os Estados Unidos e o Japão. Através de interceptações criptografadas, McCloy sabia que o Imperador estava preparado para se render, se lhe fossem dadas garantias para preservar a monarquia japonesa. Assim sendo, aconselhou Truman a oferecer termos de rendição que oferecessem essa garantia associada à ameaça implícita de usar a bomba atómica contra o Japão. McCloy argumentou que, ao fazê-lo, permitiria aos Estados Unidos reivindicar um terreno moral elevado, no caso de um bombardeio ser necessário para impedir uma invasão do continente japonês. Enquanto viajava de barco para a Conferência de Potsdam, o Secretário de Estado, James Byrnes, convenceu Truman a ignorar o conselho de McCloy. Truman ordenou que as bombas atómicas fossem lançadas assim que estivessem prontas.

Leitura complementar:

As bombas Atómicas no Japão Foram Destinadas a Terminar a Guerra e a salvar vidas?  Por Larry Romanoff

 

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

Email: [email protected]

 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Os Acordos McCloy-Zorin, 20 de Setembro de 1961

CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran. This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies’ share prices spiked, inflating the value of their executives’ stock-based pay.

I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most recent SEC information on their stock holdings.

Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the following day.

Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman’s reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held 251,947 shares of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.

New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the 92,894 shares she’d accumulated as the firm’s COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of post-assassination trading.

Lockheed Martin, whose Hellfire missiles were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world’s largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her remaining stash had increased in value by about $646,000.

What about the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in $2.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.

We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated $4.1 billion—and he’s a major investor in oil production, a sector that also stands to profit from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.

*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop Grumman COO.

Suleimani’s killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic’s fortune. As the weapon maker’s share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her stock holdings increase by more than $1.2 million.

Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the missile and bomb manufacturer’s share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday. But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.

As of his final Form 4 report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.

Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it’s a sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.

We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed capping CEO pay at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S. president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a plan to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker makes.

As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit motive for war in Iran—or anywhere—will persist.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Major U.S. Military Contractors Stand to Reap Huge Windfalls from Escalation of Conflict with Iran

Landlocked Laos is Finally Being Unlocked

January 7th, 2020 by Joseph Thomas

At face value, the Financial Times’ article, “Laos’s Belt and Road project sparks questions over China ambitions,” reads like a politically-motivated attack on infrastructure development in Asia. Because it is.

The article’s subheading, “High-speed train line in one of Asia’s poorest countries may benefit Beijing more than locals,” alone contradicts the correlation between the development of infrastructure and the alleviation of poverty. It also reveals the article as indeed, a politically-motivated attack on China and Asian development couched behind flimsy concerns over the nation of Laos and its people.

The article reports:

 Near Bom Or, a village of dirt streets and shacks in northern Laos, Chinese construction crews have cut a tunnel through a mountainside to carry high-speed trains along a 400km rail line across the country, a section of a planned route from Kunming in south-west China to Singapore.

The tunnel is part of a $6.7bn project through the rugged countryside around Luang Prabang, the ancient capital of Laos, one of the highest profile being built under China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The article also claims:

Beijing has used the programme to build roads, ports and power stations in some of the world’s poorest countries. But critics have raised concerns about the social and environmental impact of the projects, saying that many of them are white elephants that have left states heavily indebted to Beijing.

The project in Laos, one of Asia’s poorest countries which has no independent media and limited civil society groups, has been carried out with little public consultation.

Of course, by “independent media” and “civil society groups,” Financial Times means fronts funded by and for US and European interests.

The construction of massive infrastructure projects always incurs debt. The construction of nation-spanning or region-spanning mass transportation systems always displace locals living in their proposed paths and locals will always protest having to move from their homes. These are problems that mega-projects throughout history have always faced and are not unique to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

While these issues are noteworthy, the fact that the Financial Times (and other Western media outlets) omit the obvious benefits for Laos exposes the lopsided narrative of political propaganda dressed up as journalism.

Landlocked Laos is Finally Being Unlocked 

Anyone who has previously set foot in Laos would have immediately seen and felt its isolation from the rest of the world and the impact it had on Laos’ economic prospects.

A little more than a decade ago, those travelling through Laos would have noticed a severe lack of modern highways and a complete lack of rail.

To move from one part of the country to another, tourists, cargo and business people would have to travel through narrow, winding mountain roads. To travel from Laos’ northern border with China to its capital near Laos’ border with Thailand required around 3 days of travel only if team driving was used and no stops were taken for sleep.

The isolation of Laos because of its geographical location, mountainous terrain and lack of transportation infrastructure was an obvious obstacle for economic progress. The obvious solution was developing transportation infrastructure.

Now that China is working with Laos to do just that, it has been met by concerted and constant condemnation from the West.

With the completion of Chinese-built highways alone, an influx of business and tourism has predictably followed. The movement of tourists and products is expected to expand even more with the completion of high-speed rail (expected to be completed in 2021).

The Financial Times even admits:

One likely source of business will be Chinese tourists visiting Laos, whose numbers have roughly doubled from 400,000 in 2014 to 800,000 last year.

“It is Chinese tourists and products in, and raw materials out,” said Nadège Rolland, an expert on BRI with the National Bureau of Asian Research, a US think-tank. “But eventually the BRI is about much more than infrastructure — it is policy co-ordination that will align the claimed needs of the region with those of Beijing.”

Not only will transportation infrastructure in Laos connect it with China, Chinese as well as Thai projects seek to extend road and rail projects being built in Laos into Thailand and onward to Malaysia and Singapore.

Laos will go from a mostly isolated, underdeveloped nation, to a key corridor linking China to 3 of the top 5 largest economies in Southeast Asia. Its location will go from hindering its development to being central to its future development, wealth and trade.

China is indeed benefiting by transforming Laos into a corridor it can reach the rest of Southeast Asia through. But it is connecting Laos, its people and economy with the rest of Southeast Asia as well.

Villagers in the path of these projects may or may not be receiving adequate compensation. Laos may be taking on additional debt. Environmental issues may or may not be receiving adequate attention. But there is no doubt that unlocking Laos as a terminally landlocked and isolated nation will improve the net wealth of it and its people.

“Humanitarian Concerns” Mask Hegemonic Ambitions: Bombs vs. Bridges  

The concept of cities and nations strategically located to facilitate transportation and trade being key to their historical wealth and success are concepts we are taught in elementary history and social studies classes. Why then are these same basic concepts escaping the attention of Western journalists while writing article after article condemning Beijing and Vientiane’s determination to link the country with its neighbours through modern, high-speed transportation links?

The notion that high-speed rail is something only developed nations need, rather than a means to drive development is a baseless argument presented and promoted not by the people of Laos or supported by the facts surrounding ongoing development there, but by the editorial boards of Western publications like the Financial Times.

Attempts by the West to feign concern over “human rights” or “environmental” concerns in regards to infrastructure projects in Laos also fall far short of credibility. The US and other Western powers are not in any way genuinely concerned with the nation of Laos or its people.

To prove it, the US alone left more than 80 million unexploded bomblets (10 each for every man, woman and child living in Laos) littering Laos during the Vietnam War. Since then, some 20,000 people have died and many more maimed by them.

Washington’s token support to clean up its unexploded weapons is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless. The current rate of disposal the US funds means that Laos’ countryside will finally be safe not in the next several years or decades, but several centuries from now. Rather than protesting desperately needed transportation infrastructure, if the US was genuinely concerned about Laos it would start by removing its own unexploded ordnance still killing and maiming Laotians to this day.

Not only does Washington fail to invest in actual areas of concern for the people of Laos (including fulfilling obligations regarding its own unexploded ordnance littering the nation), it is hiding behind disingenuous concerns to impede projects essential for addressing their best interests, including infrastructure and economic development.
Supposed “concerns” expressed by the Western media and the interests in Washington, London and Brussels they represent, are not about helping the people of Laos or protecting the environment, they are about preventing Laos from forever finally and fully escaping out from under the spectre of American and European colonialism past and present.

These “concerns” also mask what is in reality an attempt by the West to impede competitors like China from displacing what the US itself claims is its own “primacy” over Asia. China’s drive to develop infrastructure and economic progress in neighbouring nations will also directly undermine US “primacy” over Asia.

Thus, Western “humanitarian” and “environmental” concerns are merely hiding a genuine desire to eliminate competition and maintain regional hegemony.

An independent Asia built on healthy competition, collaboration and the primacy of national sovereignty is an Asia where Washington’s and its partners’ current approach to international relations cannot exist.

Luckily for Asia, it appears it is moving forward with an approach toward development that has displaced the West’s divisive and disruptive presence in the region. Meanwhile, the West, instead of attempting to compete with China on equally constructive terms, is doubling down on the very approach that has precipitated its regional and global decline to begin with.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Landlocked Laos is Finally Being Unlocked

In Toronto and across Canada, homelessness has reached proportions that no rational and just society would tolerate and it constitutes an emergency situation. The Trump Administration, seeing levels of destitution in California that are producing social dislocation, is preparing for a brutal crackdown on the homeless. We would do well to understand how close we are in Toronto to a comparable situation. The political agenda of austerity and social cutbacks is getting worse, the extreme commodification of housing continues to drive up rents and forces people onto the streets and, globally, conditions of economic downturn are unfolding. As more and more people are rendered homeless, the kind of incarceration option that Trump favours will undoubtedly enter into the plans of the more centrist representatives of the neoliberal order.

If we are to avoid, in the next period, a dramatic intensification of homelessness, a public health tragedy and the adoption of draconian measures against those thrown onto the streets, it is obvious that significant action must be forced out of governments at every level. Wages and social benefits must be raised to levels that enable people to meet the costs of rent and, in place of the farce of ‘affordable housing’ the poor can’t afford, social housing must be built on a scale that meets the need that exists.

At present, some important struggles are underway to win concrete gains in the provision of housing. The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) is campaigning for the creation of social housing at a location in Toronto’s Downtown East. In the face of determined and sustained community pressure, Vancouver City Council has voted to expropriate two badly neglected hotels in order to create viable housing in the Downtown Eastside. As significant as initiatives like this are, it is clear that we need to move on a much wider front and win much more substantial gains, if we are to seriously address the mounting crisis.

The Housing is There

Within an enormously wealthy G7 country like Canada, it is obvious that large scale and growing homelessness reflects, not a lack of resources, but a set of societal priorities and political choices. The UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, Leilani Farha, has called for an emphasis on housing as a human right, rather than as a commodity. If we think in those terms, we must certainly challenge the oversupply of upscale housing that a developer led approach leads to. However, even with the distorted priorities that have governed the creation of the present housing stock, there are ways to we could act to meet the needs of those who are homeless and the many more who are precariously perched on the edge of destitution.

The Daily Hive suggested last August that there are 66,000 empty homes in Toronto, with housing speculation as a major cause of this. This estimate actually includes short term rentals but, if even a quarter of this figure represented empty properties that could provide housing, we are looking at a shameful misuse of a vital social resource. The City of Toronto’s latest figures on the homeless shelter system, gathered on December 30, show 7,301 people in the official shelters and another 704 in the substandard back up system. There were homes for all them to sleep in that night but they sat empty.

When it comes, specifically, to the condos in Toronto, there is further strong evidence that people sleep on the streets and, sometimes, die on them, while perfectly decent housing sits vacant. Jaco Joubert, a designer who is concerned about the issue of housing inequality, set up an elaborate system of photographing condos. He took regular photos of fifteen buildings throughout the night for a week and, then, repeated this several months later. With this methodology, he obtained a plausible estimate of the number of units that were unlit and unoccupied. He calculated that, on average, the buildings had 5.6% of their units standing empty. Between 2008 and 2018 alone, 206,392 condo units started construction in Toronto. If 5.6% of those were sitting empty there would be 11,557 vacant homes that could easily house Toronto’s shelter population twice over. It is time to think about a campaign in this city to seriously challenge this massive injustice by demanding that empty condos be used to house the homeless.

A Campaign to Take Housing

The concept of squatters’ rights has never made the kind of gains in Canada that were achieved in a number of European countries. Still, in my work with OCAP, I’ve had some involvement with trying to take over empty properties to provide housing. In some cases, the actions pressured the authorities into creating housing on the sites. In the case of the Pope Squat, the property was held for some months. However, after several of these actions, it was clear that the police would not allow us to hold the properties and that, without a base of active support much larger than we had, squat actions were not viable for the foreseeable future.

I don’t preclude the notion of some symbolic short term housing takeovers to build momentum but, fundamentally, a campaign of action challenging the scandal of empty condos needs to do more than make a point. In the 1930s, the unemployed movements of the day, took action to try and block evictions. By no means did they always succeed but the ongoing resistance made a difference. The landlords and the authorities that served their interests had to reckon with that resistance and the rights of property, exercised at the expense of the impoverished, faced a real challenge. At the moment, speculators can buy up condos in Toronto and leave them sitting empty at will. That could be changed and these parasites forced to reckon with the ever present possibility that homeless people and their allies might challenge their greedy and disgusting squandering of a vital social resource.

Such a campaign would need a core of activists with a much larger base of support. Public meetings could be held to make the case for opening the empty condos. Local committees could be formed to begin to target particular condo developments. The demands of the campaign could be put before the various levels of government and condominium corporations by way of formal deputations and public protests. The idea would be to build an active base large enough that, when action was taken around empty condos, enough supporters would be ready to turn out to transform the initiative into a mass action.

Whether or not it actually proved possible to get homeless people housed directly in empty condos, if such an effort were taken up on large scale and a sustained basis, the pressure on the authorities to provide alternatives would be considerable. In both individual actions and, in the course of the campaign generally, the issue would be ‘If it’s not here, then where is the housing for these people?’ Housing that sits empty so that speculators can enrich themselves, while pushing up housing prices, is an ugly Achilles Heel of the neoliberal city that we would be targeting in a direct and compelling way. With this approach we could create a crisis for big property owners and their political enablers out of which concessions on housing could be won that were significant enough to address the unfolding disaster of homelessness in Toronto.

*

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.

John Clarke is a writer and retired organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP). Follow his tweets at @JohnOCAP and blog at johnclarkeblog.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Homelessness and Social Dislocation Across Canada. If Housing Is a Right We Should Take It
  • Tags: ,

On the Brink of War?

January 7th, 2020 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

Are we on the brink of a Third World War? There are signs that demand that we ask this question. Three clusters of signs compel us to probe a question that could well determine the future of our civilisation.

One, the nature of the event itself — the reckless assassination of the Iranian general, Qassem Sulaimani, on the orders of the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, on 3rd January 2020 at Baghdad airport — and the fears it has generated of a full-scale war between the two countries and other actors.

Two, the events that have preceded and followed the 3rd of January murder that portend the danger of a much bigger conflict  in the world’s most tumultuous region.

Three, the tussle for power and influence in West Asia between various actors and their protectors and allies which only needs a trigger to set the entire region ablaze.

The Assassination

While the Trump administration has tried to justify the killing of Qassem Sulaimani in terms of his role in combating the American military presence in West Asia, it is indisputably true that he was also instrumental in the defeat of Al-Qaeda and Daesh and their affiliates in both Iraq and Syria — groups which the US leadership formally regarded as “terrorists.”   If Qassem had an iconic stature in Iran and certain other countries in the region it was because of his success against terrorists inasmuch as his resistance to the Americans whom he saw as occupiers.

In any case, it is doubtful if it was Qassem’s position against the US presence that was the primary factor in his assassination. Isn’t it possible that Trump was hoping that the assassination of a major figure from Iran — since Iran has been depicted as a demon in the US media — would lessen the adverse impact of his impending impeachment?  Besides, if he is perceived as a tough leader willing to eliminate a foreign opponent, wouldn’t it boost his chances of re-election in the presidential polls at the end of this year?

The Context.

Qassem’s killing should be seen in the context of deteriorating US-Iran relations since Trump withdrew from the Iran plus six nation nuclear agreement in 2018. He intensified his pressure upon Iran in a multitude of ways. Sanctions were increased manifold. Drone surveillance over Iranian territory became more pronounced. A US drone which had allegedly violated Iranian air-space was shot down by Iran on 20th January 2019. A tit-for-tat pattern in US-Iran confrontation developed often on Iraqi soil. The US for instance attacked a militia base in Iraq on 29th December 2019 which prompted pro-Iranian Iraqis to retaliate by occupying the US embassy in Baghdad on the 31st of December. Tit-for-tat confrontation arising from the targeting of Iran by the US has heightened the danger of an all-out war.

Tussle for Power

Perhaps a greater danger stems from the tussle for power within West Asia itself. Saudi Arabia, because of its immense oil wealth and its revered status as the land that situates Mekkah and Medina, has for a long while regarded itself as the leader of the Muslim world. The Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 was perceived as a challenge to its status partly because it had overthrown a monarchical structure and rejected US hegemony over the region. Besides, the vast majority of Iranians are Shia in contrast to Saudi Arabia’s adherence to Wahabi teachings. The uneasiness between the two states did not create any severe friction until the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 which led eventually to the rise of the majority Shia population through the ballot-box. The empowerment of the Shia in Iraq, and their links to Shia Iran were interpreted by the Saudi elite as a threat to their position. Soon, they also witnessed the strengthening of the minority Shia component of Syria largely because of a war imposed upon the land through the machinations of some regional actors backed by the US and its allies. It is because of these reasons — and not the military manoeuvres of Qassem Sulaimani alone —– that the Shias and Iran have become more influential in West Asia.

The increasing influence of Iran has also incensed Israel. Since the 1979 Revolution when the Iranian leadership stated unequivocally its commitment to the liberation of the Palestinian people, Israel has been antagonistic towards Iran. It has worked closely with the US elite to undermine Iran on a variety of fronts. It is their common enmity towards Iran that has now helped to forge a bond between the Israeli and Saudi elites.

It is this struggle for power, Saudi and Israeli elites on one side, and Iran and some of its allies on the other, which has exacerbated the potential for a huge conflict in the region.  Needless to say, the US role in this power struggle, as protector and defender of Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iran has heightened the danger of war as never before.

Apart from these three clusters of signs, there are other factors which may also point in the direction of a possible war. They are related to the global economy and global political power. The irreversible shift in global power from the US and the West to China and certain other actors is causing much consternation in Washington DC and London among other capitals. It signals the end of the epoch of Western dominance. Is a world war a way of preventing that change from taking place?

While the danger of a world war is real, we must also recognise that people everywhere do not want a war. A lot of governments have condemned the brazen assassination of Qassem as a gross violation of international law. In fact, some members of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate regard the authorisation of the murder by the US president as a stark transgression of US law.

For critics of US foreign policy outside the US in particular, Trump’s abuse of power is characteristic of a government which more often than not has behaved as if established law and civilised norms do not apply to it. US ‘exceptionalism’ is one of the main reasons why the global movement against hegemony has become so much stronger in the last three decades. 

They know as others do that war, a creature of hegemony, is a terrible scourge. It is not just a question of millions dying. Much of civilisation as we know it will also be eliminated especially since one of the protagonists is convinced that destroying cultural sites in a war is legitimate.

Iran which had suffered so much from a war imposed upon it in the eighties and has not initiated a war for the last 250 years is opposed to a military confrontation with the US. This is why avenging Qassem’s death for the Iranian leadership does not mean starting a war. It is a rational leadership which will focus upon driving the US military forces out of West Asia through politics and diplomacy. 

If it succeeds in achieving this, it would have transformed the region and the world for the well-being of human beings everywhere.              

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On the Brink of War?

The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ‘ Free markets’, ‘ Free enterprise’ and ‘ Free use of war’ whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace.

Of course, the major difference with movie’s Freedonia and our own is like night and day. In the film the leader, Firefly, had full control of every decision needed to be made. In our Freemerika, Mr. Trump, regardless of the image he portrays as an absolute ruler, has to dance to the tune of the Military Industrial Empire, just like ALL our previous presidents. Folks, sorry to say, but presidents are not so much harnessed by our Constitution or Congress ( or even the Supreme Court) but by the wizards who the empire picks to advise him. They decide the ‘ when and if’ of such dramatic actions like the other day’s drone missile murder in Iraq of the Iranian general. Unlike when Groucho decides he was insulted by Trentino, the Sylvanian ambassador, and declares ‘ This means war!’, Mr. Trump gave the order for the assassination… but ONLY after those behind the curtain advised him.

To believe that our presidents have carte blanche to do the heinous deeds is foolish at best. LBJ’s use of the Gulf of Tonkin phony incident to gung ho in Vietnam was not just one man making that call.

Or Nixon’s Christmas carpet bombing of Hanoi, Bush Sr.’s attack on Iraq in 1991 , his son’s ditto against Iraq in 2003, Obama’s use of NATO to destroy Libya in 2011, or this latest arrogance by Trump, were all machinations by this empire’s wizards who advised them. When the late Senator Robert Byrd stood before a near empty Senate chamber in 2003 to warn of this craziness, that told it all! We are not led by Rufus T. Firefly, rather a Cabal that most in this government do not even realize who in the hell these people are!

Of course, the embedded mainstream media does the usual job of demonizing who the empire chooses to be our enemies. As with this recent illegal act by our government of crossing into another nation’s sovereignty to do the deed, now they all tell us how deadly this Iranian general was. Yet, how many of the news outlets ever mentioned this guy for what they now tell us he was, for all these years? Well, here is the kicker. I do not know what this man was responsible for , regarding acts of insurgency against US forces in Iraq. Maybe he did aid in the attacks on US personnel. Maybe he also was there to neutralize the fanatical ISIS terrorists who were killing US and Iraqi personnel in Iraq and Syria. What I do know is that, in the first place, we had no business ever invading and occupying Iraq… period! Thus, the rest of this Duck Soup becomes postscript.

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Duck Soup”: Donald Trump, Dancing to the Tune of the Military Industrial Empire

Trump and His Team Are Lying Their Way to War with Iran

January 7th, 2020 by Ryan Costello

President Trump ordering the killing of Qassem Soleimani is troubling on several fronts. The assassination has been treated as an act of war in Iran, uniting disparate political factions after a brutal crackdown on protesters in November. Now, U.S. forces are on a state of high alert across the region, with many anticipating potential Iranian counter reprisals that risk further deepening the escalation spiral from which there could be no escape.

But there’s another troubling aspect to this decision — Congress was left in the dark, and the administration appears to be lying about the intelligence they used to justify the strike. 

The official administration line — that this disrupted an imminent attack, saving lives— was somewhat dubious from the start. Soleimani was a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, and thus gave orders to associates to carry out various operations. Killing him would be unlikely to stop an imminent attack, as many observers have pointed out. As former intelligence analyst Jon Bateman said, killing Soleimani “would be neither necessary nor sufficient to disrupt the operational progression of an imminent plot. What it might do instead is shock Iran’s decision calculus.” If anything, killing a senior Iranian military commander could guarantee the action it is purported to have forestalled.Moreover, while Congressional leaders were kept out of the loop about the strike, Trump had reportedly been boasting about it for days to guests at Mar-a-Lago. As reported by The Daily Beast, Trump told several different guests at Mar-a-Lago in the days leading up to the strike that he was “working on a ‘big’ response to the Iranian regime that they would be hearing or reading about very ‘soon,’” with Trump claiming that he’d been in touch with his national security team “gaming out options for an aggressive action that could quickly materialize.”

If true, it would beggar belief that there was a specific and imminent threat emerging from Iran that could be eliminated with Soleimani’s death. Instead, this was a calculated provocation and reckless ratcheting up of tension that Trump couldn’t wait to crow about.

Subsequent reporting confirms that the strike was contemplated for days, calling into question the administration’s narrative and its legality. According to the Los Angeles Times, President Trump surprised his national security team when he chose a strike on Soleimani from a list of follow-on actions after clashes with Iraqi Shiite militias that left one civilian contractor dead as well as dozens of militia members. The decision was “spurred on in part by Iran hawks among his advisors,” and set off a furious effort to locate Soleimani and carry out the order. 

Similarly, The Washington Post reports that the decision to strike was made Sunday, with officials reminding Trump that he had not responded to earlier provocations including Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone, egging on the reckless decision. Trump was reportedly swayed by their arguments, as he was “frustrated that the details of his internal deliberations had leaked out and felt he looked weak,” according to officials.

Lastly, the actual evidence behind the intelligence appears to be “razor thin,” according to two U.S. officials who have been briefed. As reported by the New York Times’ Rukmini Callimanchi, the intelligence includes Soleimani’s travel pattern, a purported conversation with the Supreme Leader, and heightened hostilities between the U.S. and Iran. Or, as one intelligence official described, it is “hardly evidence of an imminent attack that could kill hundreds,” with the administration’s conclusion being an “illogical leap.”

Add it all up, and you have an administration that ignored Congress while planning an assassination of a foreign general that risks a disastrous war without any plausible argument that doing so was authorized by Congress. This is an administration that has lied over matters big  and small, and thinks it can get away with lying Americans into war while repeating the George W. Bush playbook that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Hence, the warnings of an imminent terror threat that doesn’t appear to have existed as well as the bizarre lie from Vice President Mike Pence attempting to link Soleimani to the September 11 attacks. And, just like the George W. Bush administration had delusions about what would come after the invasion of Iraq, many members of Trump’s team are apparently deluded about what comes next. As one senior State Department official claimed, they don’t expect additional retaliation from Iran because the U.S. is “speaking in a language the regime understands.”

The American people don’t want a war with Iran. Avoiding such a disaster will require Congress to step up, cut through the administration’s lies, and pass legislation that reins the administration in and removes American forces from hostilities against Iran. Failing to do so will only empower a reckless administration that appears to be lying us into a 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.

A mob of masked thugs broke into India’s premier Jawaharlal Nehru University Sunday night and beat dozens of students who were protesting against their country’s contentious “Citizenship (Amendment) Act”, after which the victims accused the perpetrators of being allied with the ruling BJP and opposition leader Rahul Gandhi claimed that his country is now under the control of fascists, with all of this finally drawing long-overdue attention to the true nature of the “Modi Mob”.

Indians are shocked after a mob of masked thugs broke into their country’s premier Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Sunday night and beat dozens of students who were protesting against their government’s contentious “Citizenship (Amendment) Act”. Reuters reported that the police have come under criticism for not stopping this act of political violence which the victims believe was ordered by allies of the ruling BJP. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi also claimed that India is now under the control of fascists, which is an accurate assessment considering that last weekend’s incident was reminiscent of brown and black shirt attacks in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy, respectively. These latest developments finally draw long-overdue attention to the true nature of the “Modi Mob”, the nationwide network of BJP supporters that actively works to intimidate all who are opposed to them on social media and increasingly in the streets.

The JNU Modi Mob attack didn’t come out of nowhere, however, since it’s the natural evolution of the these thugs’ Islamophobic lynchings over the past six years since Prime Minister Modi came to power. His election energized his Hindu nationalist base (“Hindutva”) and was perceived as a signal that the state would look the other way towards mob violence against their country’s Muslim, lower-caste, ethnic, secular, and political minorities. The “majoritarianism” of Modi’s India was whitewashed as the “pure expression” of “public sentiment” in the self-professed “world’s largest democracy”, with critics at home and abroad smeared as “Pakistani puppets” for condemning this disturbing trend. Few across the world cared that Muslims were being lynched, including the governments of the many Muslim-majority states that have a vested interest in remaining silent in the face of such terrible human rights abuses against their co-confessionals for economic reasons pertaining to India’s growing energy needs and enormous market potential.

Emboldened by the lack of any significant pushback against their actions except those predictably coming from Pakistan, the Indian government eventually proceeded to annex Kashmir in violation of international law, which was also met with a muted response from practically every government in the world apart from Islamabad and Beijing. It was therefore to be expected that the BJP would become even more brazen than ever before by pushing through its most radical campaign promises to round up all (mostly Muslim) illegal immigrants, especially in the “Indian Balkans” of the Northeast “Seven Sisters”, and impose a new citizenship law for supposedly oppressed religious minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan that openly discriminates against Muslims. Somewhat surprisingly, that proved to be a bridge too far even for the BJP, provoking nationwide protests that have already lasted roughly a month and show no signs of abating anytime soon. In response to this unexpected development that’s since united the country’s dissatisfied masses into what the author describes as the “coalition of malcontents”, the Modi Mob was unleashed into the streets.

This nebulous network’s transformation from an online troll factory into fascist street thugs was seamless because its many members are already politically and religiously radicalized to the point where they truly believe that their anti-democratic violence is “saving the country” just like Hitler’s brown shirts and Mussolini’s black ones thought the same in their time. Their BJP handlers spent years building an unofficial army for deployment against their own people in precisely these types of scenarios where they believe that physical violence can succeed where its online component failed in intimidating dissidents into self-censoring their views and not daring to publicly express them en masse through largely peaceful protests such as the one that the JNU students organized on Sunday. About that attack, the police were passively complicit in what happened after possibly having been tipped off in advance at the very least seeing as how they didn’t do anything to stop the violence that raged for nearly two hours on campus. This observation speaks to just how deeply the Modi Mob has infiltrated all levels of the state in the years since Modi’s election.

Indians and the world at large are slowly waking up to the reality that the self-professed “world’s largest democracy” is really the world’s largest fascist state, one which was never even secular to begin with but has spent the last seven decades gradually transforming into the “Hindu Rashtra” that the BJP’s RSS forefounders always envisaged it as being ever since one of their supporters assassinated Gandhi. The group’s leader even boasted last September that “RSS and India are synonymous now. We also wanted the world to see India and RSS as one”, thus making no secret of this previously “taboo” fact. They wouldn’t have gotten this far had they not worked for decades to patiently achieve their socio-political aims, nor if they were actively opposed by Indians and the international community alike. Therefore, one can confidently say that the Modi Mob epitomizes everything that India really is, not what it’s falsely portrayed itself as being for so long, and it’s up to those who still believe in a different path of development to peacefully resist their fascist government and its supporters so as to give their country a genuine chance to finally become a secular democracy if they succeed.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Jawaharlal Nehru University Attack Shows Just How Fascist The ‘Modi Mob’ Is

Iranian Revenge Will Be A Dish Best Served Cold

January 7th, 2020 by Scott Ritter

The assassination by the United States of Qassem Suleimani, a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps general and commander of the Quds Force, an Iranian paramilitary force specializing in covert operations on foreign soil, has sent shock waves through the Middle East and around the globe.

The Trump administration has justified its action, citing unspecified intelligence that indicated Suleimani was in the process of finalizing plans for attacks on U.S. personnel and interests in the region, claiming that Suleimani’s death “saved American lives.” This narrative has been challenged by Lebanese officials familiar with Suleimani’s itinerary, noting that the Iranian general had been in Beirut on diplomatic business, and had travelled to Baghdad via a commercial air flight, where he had been diplomatically cleared to enter. These officials claim Suleimani was killed while riding in a convoy on his way from Baghdad International Airport into the city of Baghdad.

In any event, Suleimani’s death resonates in a region already on edge because of existing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has announced three days of mourning for Suleimani, an indication of his status as national hero. Khamenei also vowed revenge on those who perpetrated the attack. Concern over imminent Iranian retaliation has prompted the State Department to order all American citizens to leave Iraq, and for U.S. forces in the region to be placed on the highest level of alert. Hundreds of American soldiers have been flown into the region as reinforcements, with thousands more standing by if needed.

For many analysts and observers, Iran and the U.S. are on the cusp of a major confrontation. While such an outcome is possible, the reality is that the Iranian policy of asymmetrical response to American aggression that had been put in place by Qassem Suleimani when he was alive is still in place today. While emotions run high in the streets of Iranian cities, with angry crowds demanding action, the Iranian leadership, of which Suleimani was a trusted insider, recognizes that any precipitous action on its part only plays into the hands of the United States. In seeking revenge for the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, Iran will most likely play the long game, putting into action the old maxim that revenge is a dish best served cold.

In many ways, the United States has already written the script regarding major aspects of an Iranian response. The diplomatic missions Suleimani may have been undertaking at the time of his death centered on gaining regional support for pressuring the United States to withdraw from both Syria and Iraq. Of the two, Iraq was, and is, the highest priority, if for no other reason that there can be no sustained U.S. military presence in Syria without the existence of a major U.S. military presence in Iraq. Suleimani had been working with sympathetic members of the Iraqi Parliament to gain support for legislation that would end Iraq’s support for U.S. military forces operating on Iraqi soil. Such legislation was viewed by the United States as a direct threat to its interests in both Iraq and the region.

The U.S. had been engaged in a diplomatic tug of war with Iran to sway Iraqi politicians regarding such a vote. However, this effort was dealt a major blow when Washington conducted a bombing attack Sunday which targeted Khaitab Hezbollah along the border with Syria, killing scores of Iraqis. The justification for these attacks was retaliation for a series of rocket attacks on an American military base that had killed one civilian contractor and wounded several American soldiers. The U.S. blamed Iranian-backed Khaitab Hezbollah (no relation to the Lebanese Hezbollah group), for the attacks.

There are several problems with this narrative, first and foremost being that the bases bombed were reportedly more than 500 kilometers removed from the military base where the civilian contractor had been killed. The Iraqi units housed at the bombed facilities, including Khaitab Hezbollah, were engaged, reportedly, in active combat operations against ISIS remnants operating in both Iraq and Syria. This calls into question whether they would be involved in an attack against an American target. In fact, given the recent resurgence of ISIS, it is entirely possible that ISIS was responsible for the attack on the U.S. base, creating a scenario where the U.S. served as the de facto air force for ISIS by striking Iraqi forces engaged in anti-ISIS combat operations.

ISIS has emerged as a major feature in the Iranian thinking regarding how best to strike back at the US for Suleimani’s death. The Iranian government has gone out of its way to announce that, in the wake of Suleimani’s assassination, that Washington would be held fully responsible for any resurgence of ISIS in the region. Given the reality that Iran has been at the forefront of the war against ISIS, and that Iranian-backed Iraqi militias such as Khaitab Hezbollah have played a critical role in defeating ISIS on the ground, there is no doubt that Iran has the ability to take its foot off of the neck of a prostrate ISIS and facilitate their resurgence in areas under U.S. control.

Such an outcome would serve two purposes. First, U.S. forces would more than likely suffer casualties in the renewed fighting, especially since their primary proxy force, the Syrian Kurds, have been diminished in the aftermath of Turkey’s incursion late last year in northern Syria. More importantly, however, is the political cost that will be paid by President Trump, forced to explain away a resurgent ISIS during an election year after going on record that ISIS had been completely defeated.

But the real blow to American prestige would be for the Iraqi government to sever relations with the American military. The U.S. bombing of the Iraqi bases severely stressed U.S.-Iraqi relations, with the Iraqi government protesting the attacks as a violation of their sovereignty. One of the ways the Iraqi government gave voice to its displeasure was by facilitating access by protestors affiliated with Khaitab Hezbollah to gain access to the highly secure Green Zone in downtown Baghdad where the U.S. Embassy is situated, where they set fire to some buildings and destroyed property before eventually dispersing. While commentators and politicians have described the actions targeting the US Embassy as an “attack,” it was a carefully choreographed bit of theater designed to ease passions that had built up as a result of the U.S. attack.

Getting the Iraqi Parliament to formally reject the U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil has long been a strategic objective of Iran. As such, Iran would be best served by avoiding direct conflict with the US, and letting events take their expected course.

If Iraq votes to expel American forces, the Trump administration will be tied up trying to cope with how to manage that new reality. Add to that the problems that will come in confronting a resurgent ISIS, and it becomes clear that by simply doing nothing, Iran will have already gained the strategic upper hand in a post-Suleimani world. The Trump administration will find it hard to sustain the deployment of thousands of troops in the Middle East if there is no Iranian provocation to respond to. Over time, the American presence will lessen. Security will lapse. And, when the time is right, Iran will strike, most probably by proxy, but in a manner designed to inflict as much pain as possible.

Trump started this fight by recklessly ordering the assassination of a senior Iranian government official. The Trump administration now seeks to shape events in the region to best support a direct confrontation with Iran. Such an outcome is not in Iran’s best interests. Instead, they will erode Trump’s political base by embarrassing him in Iraq and with ISIS. Iran will respond, that much can be assured. But the time and place will be of their choosing, when the U.S. expects it least.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most recently, Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War (2018).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iranian Revenge Will Be A Dish Best Served Cold

It was not the US decision to fire missiles against the IRGC commander Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani that killed the Iranian officer and his companions in Baghdad. Yes, of course, the order that was given to launch missiles from the two drones (which destroyed the two cars carrying Sardar Soleimani and his companion the Iraqi commander in al-Hashd al-Shaabi Jamal Jaafar Al-Tamimi aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and burned their bodies in the vehicle) came from US command and control.

However, the reason President Donald Trump made this decision derives from the weakness of the “axis of resistance”, which has completely retreated from the level of performance that Iran believed it was capable of after decades of work to strengthen this “axis”.

A close companion of Major General Qassim Soleimani, to whom he spoke hours before boarding the plane that took him from Damascus to Baghdad, told me:

“The nobleman died. Palestine above all has lost Hajj Qassem (Soleimani). He was the “King” of the Axis of the Resistance and its leader. He was assassinated and this is exactly what he was hoping to reach in this life (Martyrdom). However, this axis will live and will not die. No doubt, the Axis of the Resistance needs to review its policy and regenerate itself to correct its path. This was what Hajj Qassim was complaining about and planning to work on and strategizing about in his last hours. ”

The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But the “axis of the Resistance” killed him before that. This is how:

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assassinated the deputy head of the Military Council (the highest authority in the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is headed by its Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah), Hajj Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah could not avenge him until today.

When Trump gave Netanyahu Jerusalem as the “capital of Israel”, the “Axis of the Resistance” did not move except by holding television symposia and conferences verbally rejecting the decision.

When President Trump offered the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Israel and the “Axis of Resistance” did not react, the US President Donald Trump and his team understood that they were opposed by no effective deterrent. The inaction of the Resistance axis emboldened Trump to do what he wants.

ENh0unwXYAYGWVE

And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria, the “Axis of the Resistance” justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: “We do not want to be dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy,” as a senior official in this axis told me.

In Iraq shortly before his death, Major General Soleimani was complaining about the weakening of the Iraqi ranks within this “Axis of the Resistance”, represented by the Al-Bina’ (Construction) Alliance and other groups close to this alliance like Al-Hikma of Ammar al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi, formerly close to Iran, that have gone over to the US side.

In Iraq, Major General Soleimani was very patient and never lost his temper. He was trying to reconcile the Iraqis, both his allies and those who had chosen the US camp and disagreed with him. He used to hug those who shouted at him to lower tensions and continue dialogue to avoid spoiling the meeting. Anyone who raised his voice during discussions soon found that it was Soleimani who calmed everyone down.

Hajj Qassem Soleimani was unable to reach a consensus on the new Prime Minister’s name among those he deemed to be allies in the same coalition. He asked Iraqi leaders to select the names and went through all of these asking questions about the acceptability of these names to the political groups, to the Marjaiya, to protestors in the street and whether the suggested names were not provocative or challenging to the US. Notwithstanding the animosity between Iran and the US, Soleimani encouraged the selection of a personality that would not be boycotted by the US. Soleimani believed the US capable of damaging Iraq and understood the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the US for the stability of the country.

Soleimani was shocked by the dissension among Iraqi Shia and believed that the “axis of resistance” needed a new vision as it was faltering. In the final hours before his death, Major General Soleimani was ruminating on the profound antagonisms between Iraqis of the same camp.

When the Iraqi street began to move against the government, the line rejecting American hegemony was fragmented because it was part of the authority that ruled and governed Iraq. To make matters worse, Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr directed his arrows against his partners in government, as though the street demonstrations did not target him, the politician controlling the largest number of Iraqi deputies, ministers and state officials, who had participated in the government for more than ten years.

LqOFXBkZ.jpg-medium

Major General Soleimani admonished Moqtada Al-Sadr for his stances, which contributed to undermining the Iraqi ranks because the Sadrist leader did not offer an alternative solution or practical project other than the chaos. Moqtada has his own men, the feared Saraya al-Salam, present in the street.

When US Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on December 28 and informed him of America’s intentions of hitting Iraqi security targets inside Iraq, including the PMU, Soleimani was very disappointed by Abdul-Mahdi’s failure to effectively oppose Esper. Abdul-Mahdi merely told Esper that the proposed US action was dangerous. Soleimani knew that the US would not have hit Iraqi targets had Abdul-Mahdi dared to oppose the US decision. The targeted areas were a common Iranian-Iraqi operational stage to monitor and control ISIS movements on the borders with Syria and Iraq. The US would have reversed its decision had the Iraqi Prime Minister threatened the US with retaliation in the event that Iraqi forces were bombed and killed. After all, the US had no legal right to attack any objective in Iraq without the agreement of the Iraqi government. This decision was the moment when Iraq has lost its sovereignty and the US took control of the country.

This effective US control is another reason why President Trump gave the green light to kill Major General Soleimani. The Iraqi front had demonstrated its weakness and also, it was necessary to select a strong Iraqi leader with the guts to stand to the US arrogance and unlawful actions.

ENhXiSdWkAEtjhC

Iran has never controlled Iraq, as most analysts mistakenly believe and speculate. For years, the US has worked hard in the corridors of the Iraqi political leadership lobby for its own interests. The most energetic of its agents was US Presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who clearly realised the difficulties of navigating inside Iraqi leaders’ corridors during the search for a prime minister of Iraq before the appointment of Adel Abdel Mahdi, the selection of President Barham Saleh and other governments in the past. Major General Soleimani and McGurk shared an understanding of these difficulties. Both understood the nature of the Iraqi political quagmire.

Soleimani did not give orders to fire missiles at US bases or attack the US Embassy. If it was in his hands to destroy them with accurate missiles and to remove the entire embassy from its place without repercussions, he would not have hesitated. But the Iraqis have their own opinions, methods, modus operandi and selection of targets and missile calibres; they never relied on Soleimani for such decisions.

Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs was never welcomed by the Marjaiya in Najaf, even if it agreed to receive Soleimani on a few occasions. They clashed over the reelection of Nuri al-Maliki, Soleimani’s preferred candidate, to the point that the Marjaiya wrote a letter making its refusal of al-Maliki explicit. This led to the selection of Abadi as prime minister.

Soleimani’s views contradicted the perception of the Marjaiya, that had to write a clear message, firstly, to reject the re-election of Nori al-Maliki to a third session, despite Soleimani’s insistence.

PHOTO-2020-01-05-13-06-52

All of the above is related to the stage that followed the 2011 departure of US forces from Iraq under President Obama. Prior to that, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis was the link between the Iraqis and Iran: he had the decision-making power, the vision, the support of various groups, and effectively served as the representative of Soleimani, who did not interfere in the details. These Iraqi groups met with Soleimani often in Iran; Soleimani rarely travelled to Iraq during the period of heavy US military presence.

Soleimani, although he was the leader of the “Axis of the Resistance”, was sometimes called “the king” in some circles because his name evokes Solomon. According to sources within the “Axis of the Resistance”, he “never dictated his own policy but left a margin of movement and decision to all leaders of the axis without exception. Therefore, he was considered the link between this axis and the supreme leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was able to contact Sayyed Khamenei at any time and directly without mediation. The Leader of the revolution considered Soleimani as his son.

According to sources, in Syria, Soleimani “never hesitated to jump inside a truck, ride an ordinary car, take the first helicopter, or travel on a transport or cargo plane as needed. He did not take any security precautions but used his phone (which he called a companion spy) freely because he believed that when the decision came to assassinate him, he would follow his destiny.  He looked forward to becoming a martyr because he had already lived long.”

Was the leader of the “resistance axis” managing and running it?

ENhVh1pWsAA9rPJ

Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: “You are an Arab and the Arabs accept you more than they accept Iran”. Sayyed Nasrallah directed and managed the axis of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen and had an important role in Iraq. Hajj Soleimani was the liaison between the axis of the resistance and Iran and he was the financial and logistical officer. According to my source, “He was a friend of all leaders and officials of all ranks. He was humble and looked after everyone he had to deal with”.

The “Axis of Resistance” indirectly allowed the killing of Qassem Soleimani. If Israel and the US could know Sayyed Nasrallah’s whereabouts, they would not hesitate a moment to assassinate him. They may be aware: the reaction may be limited to burning flags and holding conferences and manifesting in front of an embassy. Of course, this kind of reaction does not deter President Trump who wants to be re-elected with the support of Israel and US public opinion. He wants to present himself as a warrior and determined leader who loves battle and killing.

Iran invested 40 years building the “Axis of the Resistance”. It cannot remain idle, faced with the assassination of the Leader of this axis. Would a suitable price be the US exit from Iraq and condemnation in the Security Council? Would that, together with withdrawal from the nuclear deal, be enough for Iran to avenge its General? Will the ensuing battle be confined to the Iraqi stage? Will it be used for the victory of certain Iraqi political players?

The assassination of its leader represents the supreme test for the Axis of Resistance. All sides, friend and foe, are awaiting its response.

Proofread by  C.G.B. and Maurice Brasher

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fragmentation in the “Axis of Resistance” Led to Soleimani’s Death

Impeach Trump for Acts of War on Iraq, Iran and Elsewhere

January 7th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Trump’s legal team reportedly prepared their strategy to challenge articles of impeachment by House Dems — yet to be sent to the GOP-controlled Senate for trial.

According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley, “(b)y rushing the impeachment and forcing a vote before Christmas, the House gave up control over an incomplete and insufficient case for removal,” adding:

“It gave up that control to a chamber controlled by the opposing party.”

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to game the system has not achieved any concession from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.”

“Few of us believed it would. Now the House will proceed on the thinnest record ever presented in a modern presidential impeachment trial.”

Clearly it’s going nowhere, likely to help Trump’s reelection, not undermine it.

Articles of impeachment by House Dems against Trump with no legitimate standing seek political advantage in November’s presidential and congressional elections.

That’s what this is all about, ignoring serious Trump wrongdoing, just cause for impeachment and removal from office. More on this below.

Under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4, impeachment and conviction require proving “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

No legitimacy exists to impeach Trump for abuse of power on grounds of seeking interference from Ukraine to aid his 2020 presidential reelection and obstruction of Congress for defying House subpoenas.

Clear just cause exists to impeach and remove him from office for crimes of war, against humanity, and betraying the public trust by serving monied interests exclusively at the expense of ordinary people he greatly harmed at home and abroad.

Breaching virtually every positive promise made to the American people proved he can never be trusted and no longer has justification to serve.

Abroad, he escalated crimes of war and against humanity against Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

He supports aggression in Libya, Donbass, Ukraine, and Occupied Palestine.

He’s waging economic terrorism on Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and other countries.

He supports international terrorism while pretending to combat it.

As US president and commander-in-chief, he’s responsible for high crimes at home and abroad, legitimate impeachable offenses.

He committed acts of war against Iraq and Iran by terror-bombing Iraqi territory, killing deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and others, along with assassinating IRGC Quds Force commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

All of the above are high crimes, just cause to impeach and remove him from office, what Dems and Republicans should support.

Clearly they won’t because they share guilt. The vast majority of Washington’s political class is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors — by supporting aggression, state terrorism, and other hostile actions

In response to Trump’s threat to target dozens of Iranian sites, including cultural ones, President Rouhani warned him “never (to) threaten the Iranian nation.”

In solidarity against imperial USA for assassinating General Soleimani, millions of Iranians took to the streets over the weekend and Monday to honor him and symbolically stand against the scourge America represents.

As a nation mourns the loss of its revered Quds Force commander, his assassination an act of war by any standard, Iran’s parliament discussed an appropriate response, the body’s spokesman Asadollah Abbasi saying:

“In reaction to the recent terrorist and cowardly assassination of Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani and his companions by the US and as decided by the presiding board, the triple-urgency motion will be put on the agenda of the parliament’s open session,” adding:

“The latest US action is viewed as ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ not only by the parliament’s presiding board but also by most world countries, and the ratification of the triple-urgency motion lends legal credit to this issue.”

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif denounced the US for its “blatant disregard for the jus cogens in international law as well as for universally-recognized rights and immunities,” adding:

“This is the same schizophrenic approach that repugnantly threatens, in contravention of international law, to strike Iran’s cultural sites which are part of the shared human cultural and civilizational heritage.”

Killing Soleimani, a “voice of independence-seeking struggles” in the war-torn Middle East, was a “cowardly” attack on him and the Iranian nation, “a strategic blunder.”

The only way forward for restoration of regional peace and stability is “expulsion of the US from West Asia.”

Zarif stressed that Iran remains “the anchor of peace and security” in the Middle East, along with its development.

Peace and stability defeat US imperial aims. Endless wars and other hostile actions serve it — what its imperial scourge is all about.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Impeach Trump for Acts of War on Iraq, Iran and Elsewhere

Canadian Peace Congress Condemns Imperial War Crimes

January 7th, 2020 by Laura Savinkoff

Dear Friends for Peace,

The Canadian Peace Congress condemns the murders of Iranian General Soleimani and others in the motorcade leaving Baghdad International Airport on January 3rd, 2020 as an act of war by the United States against Iraq and Iran.

This American criminal action is an act of aggression, a violation of the UN Charter and every norm of international law. It places the entire world at risk of a generalised war. The excuses offered by the United States government for this barbarity reflect their hypocrisy, their complete lack of morality, their contempt for law, their contempt for civilized behavior.

We must remember that the US forces in Iraq are invading and occupying forces that destroyed Iraq in the years since their invasion of 2003. The invasion began with the murders of thousands of people in the “shock and awe” campaign on the very first day, continued with their show trial and murder of President Hussein and continues to the present, along with their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and their invasion and occupation of Syria. Millions have died as a result.

The untold suffering caused by the illegal US economic embargo on Iran, in violation of the UN Charter and the Rome Statute concerning collective punishment of civilian populations, is well known and is also an act of war.

This is not the first assassination of Iranian citizens by the United States. The Americans, with Israeli help, have carried out multiple assassinations of Iranian scientists and officials in the past and have repeatedly threatened to kill the country’s leadership.

These are the actions of criminals. Therefore, we call on the International Criminal Court to condemn the American actions as a war crime even if it has no jurisdiction over them and we call on the SecurityCouncil to refer the matter to the ICC, thereby giving the ICC the jurisdiction it needs to file war crimes charges against Donald Trump and all the officials involved.

We condemn the support given to the American action by the Canadian government, which makes it complicit in this crime. We call on the people of Canada to engage in mass protests against this crime and demand that the Government of Canada condemn the American action as the crime it is, as the grave danger to world peace that it is.

We also call on the Canadian government to withdraw all its forces in Iraq, which are in violation of the UN Charter and the National Defence Act.

Peace can only come from international cooperation, diplomacy and adherence to international law. It does not come from acts of war and murder.
We call on the USA to abandon its aggressive policies towards Iran and hope that Iran can find a way to avoid a general war even in the face of these grave provocations by the United States.

On Behalf of the Executive of the Canadian Peace Congress,

Laura Savinkoff, Christopher Black
Vice-President Director

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Peace Congress Condemns Imperial War Crimes

With another 3,000 US troops preparing to deploy to the Middle East and six Boeing B-52 Stratofortress nuclear-capable bombers headed to a major US military base at Deigo Garcia, 52 stealth fighter jets conducted a Combat Power Exercise Monday amid escalating tensions between the US and Iran. 

Also known as the Elephant Walk exercise, 52 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters carrying missiles and bombs were taxiing down a runway at Hill Air Force base in Utah on Monday.

Elephant walks are generally conducted right before a minimum interval takeoff (MITO), a technique used by the US Air Force (USAF) to scramble all jets to take off at twelve- and fifteen-second intervals.

 The objective of the exercise is to get all fighters and bombers in the air within fifteen minutes of an alert of an incoming missile attack.

“The exercise, which was planned for months, demonstrated their ability to employ a large force of F-35As – testing readiness in the areas of personnel accountability, aircraft generation, ground operations, flight operations, and combat capability against air and ground targets. A little more than four years after receiving their first combat-coded F-35A Lightning II aircraft, Hill’s fighter wings have achieved full warfighting capability,” said the 388th Fighter Wing in a Facebook post.

From troop deployments to a show of force with B-52 bombers and stealth fighters, the Trump administration is sending a clear message to Iran.

Meanwhile, Iranian state media channels on Monday began “answering” US threats, broadcasting military “shows of force” against the United States to its population:

President Trump has already threatened an all-out attack on 52 sites inside Iran. The threat of war has never been greater, the world has dove into uncharted waters in the last week. All eyes on possible retaliation strike by Iran.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 52 Stealth Fighter Jets Elephant Walk In Show Of Force Amid Threats Of War

The U.S. government’s actions would constitute a clear violation of the terms of a 1947 agreement requiring Washington to allow foreign officials to enter the country to conduct U.N. business. 

United States Trump administration denied Monday a visa to Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to prevent him from addressing the United Nations Security Council on Jan. 9 on the assassination of Iran’s top military officer in Baghdad.

According to diplomatic sources, the U.S. government’s actions would constitute a clear violation of the terms of a 1947 agreement requiring Washington to allow foreign officials to enter the country to conduct U.N. business.

Zarif applied for a visa “a few weeks ago” to enter the U.S. to attend a Jan. 9 Security Council meeting on the importance of upholding the U.N. Charter. Thursday’s meeting would have been an opportunity for Tehran’s top diplomat to address the international community since the U.S. president ordered the Jan. 3 attack that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani.

However, a Trump administration official told U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that the U.S. would not allow Zarif to enter the country. A move that comes at a time of high tension between both countries, as Iran has sworn to avenge the murder of Soleimani.


On Sunday, Iran has summoned the Swiss diplomatic mission in Tehran after a series of tweets from U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to destroy the Islamic Republic’s cultural sites if American assets were targeted.

Trump wrote in a series of tweets that “if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites”, including Iranian culture, that he said would be hit hard.

The U.S. President would later brag about spending over US$2 Trillion on military defense, something he said should scare Iran from retaliating.

Meanwhile, in Iran millions took to the streets to mourn the killed general on Sunday and Monday as the Quds force raised the red flag in Iran over Jamkaran Mosque in Qom.

The red flag that is raised for the first time in Iran, symbolizes two aspects in the Shiite tradition, on the one hand, the blood unjustly shed and, on the other, a call to avenge the death of a murdered person.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Blocks Iran’s Foreign Minister From Addressing UN Security Council

Financial N-Option Will Settle Trump’s Oil War

January 7th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

The bombshell facts were delivered by caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, during an extraordinary, historic parliamentary session in Baghdad on Sunday.

Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani had flown into Baghdad on a normal carrier flight, carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by the Trump administration.

So Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump. And Soleimani was a messenger. Adil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 am, Baghdad time, last Friday. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport.

Let that sink in – for the annals of 21st century diplomacy. Once again: it does not matter whether the assassination order was issued by President Trump, the US Deep State or the usual suspects – or  when. After all, the Pentagon had Soleimani on its sights for a long time, but always refused to go for the final hit, fearing devastating consequences.

Now, the fact is that the United States government – on foreign soil, as a guest nation – has assassinated a diplomatic envoy who was on an official mission that had been requested by the United States government itself.

Baghdad will formally denounce this behavior to the United Nations. However, it would be idle to expect UN outrage about the US killing of a diplomatic envoy. International law was dead even before 2003’s Shock and Awe.

Mahdi Army is back

Under these circumstances, it’s no wonder the Iraqi Parliament approved a non-binding resolution asking the Iraqi government to expel foreign troops by cancelling a request for military assistance from the US.

Translation: Yankee go home.

Predictably, Yankee will refuse the demand. Trump: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”

US troops already are set to remain in Syria illegally – to “take care of the oil.” Iraq, with its extraordinary energy reserves, is an even more serious case. Leaving Iraq means Trump, US neocons and the Deep State lose control, directly and indirectly, of the oil for good. And, most of all, lose the possibility of endless interfering against the Axis of Resistance – Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah.

Apart from the Kurds – bought and paid for – Iraqis all across the political spectrum are tuned in to public opinion: this occupation is over. That includes Muqtada al-Sadr, who reactivated the Mahdi Army and wants the US embassy shut down for good.

As I saw it live at the time, the Mahdi Army was the Pentagon’s nemesis, especially around 2003-04. The only reason the Mahdi Army were appeased was because Washington offered Sadr Saddam Hussein, the man who killed his father, for summary execution without trial. For all his political inconsistencies, Sadr is immensely popular in Iraq.

Soleimani pysop

Hezbollah’s secretary-general Sayyed Nasrallah, in a very detailed speech, goes to the jugular on the meaning of Soleimani’s assassination.

Nasrallah tells how the US identified the strategic role of Soleimani in every battlefield – Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran. He tells how Israel saw Soleimani as an “existential threat” but “dared not to kill him. They could have killed him in Syria, where his movements were public.”

So the decision to assassinate Soleimani in public, as Nasrallah reads it, was a psyop. And the “fair retribution” is “ending the American military presence in our region.” All US military personnel will be kept on their toes, watching their backs, full time. This has nothing to do with American citizens: “I’m not talking about picking on them, and picking on them is forbidden to us.”

With a single stroke, the assassination of Soleimani has managed to unite not only Iraqis but Iranians, and in fact the whole Axis of Resistance. On myriad levels, Soleimani could be described as the 21st century Persian Che Guevara: the Americans have made sure he’s  metastasizing into the Muslim Resistance Che.

Oil war

No tsunami of pedestrian US mainstream media PR will be able to disguise a massive strategic blunder – not to mention yet another blatantly illegal targeted assassination.

Yet this might as well have been a purposeful blunder. Killing Soleimani does prove that Trump, the Deep State and the usual suspects all agree on the essentials: there can be no entente cordiale between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Divide and rule remains the norm.

Michael Hudson sheds light on what is in effect a protracted “democratic” oil war: “The assassination was intended to escalate America’s presence in Iraq to keep control of the region’s oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi troops (Isis, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America’s foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of the US dollar. That remains the key to understanding this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.”

Neither Trump nor the Deep State could not fail to notice that Soleimani was the key strategic asset for Iraq to eventually assert control of its oil wealth, while progressively defeating the Wahhabi/Salafist/jihadi galaxy. So he had to go.

‘Nuclear option’

For all the rumble surrounding Iraqi commitment to expel US troops and the Iranian pledge to react to the Soleimani assassination at a time of its choosing, there’s no way to make the imperial masters listen without a financial hit.

Enter the world derivatives market, which every major player knows is a financial WMD.

The derivatives are used to drain a trillion dollars a year out of the market in manipulated profits. These profits, of course, are protected under the “too big to prosecute” doctrine.

It’s all obviously parasitic and illegal. The beauty is it can be turned into a nuclear option against the imperial masters.

I’ve written extensively about it. New York connections told me the columns all landed on Trump’s desk. Obviously he does not read anything – but the message was there, and also delivered in person.

This past Friday, two American, mid-range, traditional funds bit the dust because they were leveraging in derivatives linked to oil prices.

If Tehran ever decided to shut down the Strait of Hormuz – call it the nuclear option – that would trigger a world depression as trillions of dollars of derivatives imploded.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) counts about $600 billion in total derivatives. Not really. Swiss sources say there are at least 1.2 quadrillion with some placing it at 2.5 quadrillion. That would imply a derivatives market 28 times the world’s GDP.

On Hormuz, the shortage of 22% of the world oil supply simply could not be papered over. It would detonate a collapse and cause a market crash infinitely worse than 1933 Weimar Germany.

The Pentagon gamed every possible scenario of a war on Iran – and the results are grim. Sound generals – yes, there are some – know the US Navy would not be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open:  it would have to leave immediately or, as sitting ducks, face total annihilation.

So Trump threatening to destroy 52 Iranian sites – including priceless cultural heritage – is a bluff. Worse: this is the stuff of bragging by an ISIS-worthy barbarian. The Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas. ISIS nearly destroyed Palmyra. Trump Bakr al-Mar-a-Lago wants to join in as the destroyer of Persian culture.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Financial N-Option Will Settle Trump’s Oil War

America, Where Great Literature Kicked the Bucket

January 7th, 2020 by Andre Vltchek

Once in a while, people ask me: “Why did you accept the US citizenship, many years ago?” “After all,” they say, “now you are one of the most vocal critics of the United States, and of the West in general.”

Perhaps I never explained, or I did, some time ago, and now it is forgotten. So, let me try again, now that the world is facing destruction, and an unpronounced but real “new cold war” is ruining millions of lives.

First of all, let me clarify: I am a novelist. That’s what I am, essentially, no matter what other stuff of mine you are reading, and no matter what films of mine you are watching.

Really, seriously, you did not know? Of course, you did! Journalists do not write like this.

As a novelist, since my childhood, I was in love with the literature that used to be written in the United States. I am talking about North America about which people hardly know much, now.

The America of Huckleberry Finn, of Captain John Yossarian from “Catch 22”, or Robert Jordan from “For Whom the Bell Tolls”.

Commercialism, Western propaganda and so-called political correctness, made that country of daring, rebellion, dreams, and yes – depth – almost disappear from the ‘cultural radar’, all over the world. Selfishness, narcissism and lately, the inability to even listen to others, has made American culture basically ruin itself, and in the process, to ruin its literature, its society and what was positive about its very essence.

Also, it has managed to destroy the image of itself, all over the world.

*

“My America” was actually a country which we knew, loved and cherished in Leningrad and Prague, perhaps even much more than in Chicago or Atlanta. A country of giants such as Faulkner and Hemingway, Nathanael West, Steinbeck, Dreiser, Heller, Tennessee Williams, and Eugene O’Neill.

This America is now thoroughly unknown in the neo-colonies, from Jakarta to Guatemala, and from Nairobi to Riyadh.

The America that is renowned nowadays is that of the cheapest pop, of Hollywood blockbusters, sitcoms, junk food and junk clothing. An America of a pathetic narrative, of dumb slang, predictable humor and feel-good rubbish.

Yet, it was that deep, unknown, and mysterious America full of powerful and often dark narratives, as well as of brave voices, with which I fell, decades ago, deeply in love.

I fell in love with it, got enormously inspired by it, but when it changed and lost most of its strength, when it gained the excessive amount of aggressiveness and ignorance, I had no choice but to leave it behind.

I always loved Faulkner, but suddenly there was no figure of his magnitude.

I loved Hemingway, but he has been smeared by the mainstream critics, clearly because he fully supported the Cuban Revolution and despised imperialism. In the end, he got essentially murdered by the U.S. regime.

I loved the naughtiness, madness, aggressive anti-establishment humor of Joseph Heller. Yes, his books used to be bestsellers, although they were trashing everything from U.S. militarism, to the U.S. corporate culture. In his era, and when I was a child, his novels sold like hot potatoes. In the United States, there are no writers like him, now. Nobody dares to write as he did. Writers are silenced by “political correctness”, by self-censorship, and by the desire to please increasingly oppressive publishers. Intuitively, they know what is expected from them. They play the game. It is huge business. Like journalism, and, as in academia.

Now, in the United States, as well as in the United Kingdom and Germany, there are numerous literary awards, which reward mediocrity, but there are hardly any literary giants.

*

North American writers were well ahead of their time. At least some of them were.

Recently, when I was visiting my friends at the “Left Word” publishing house in New Delhi, India, I was surprised to find a Mark Twain book about the crimes against humanity committed by King Leopold II of Belgium, in Congo! Part of the Belgian establishment is still denying these crimes, to this day. A hundred years ago, Mark Twain rose in defense of a destroyed African nation.

Hemingway clearly understood the enormity of Mark Twain, as he also understood Africa. In his “Green Hills of Africa”, he wrote, in fact he smashed America with one powerful thought:

“All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn. If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen from the boys. That is the real end. The rest is just cheating. But it’s the best book we’ve had. All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since.”

Hemingway also clearly understood his times. Quoted in Look in May of 1954, he said:

“There is nothing wrong with Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin that a .577 solid would not cure”. 

Now, wouldn’t you love the literature of a country, which dares to drop such verbal bombs? These days, such a statement would land you in the Guantanamo camp. Of course, Hemingway, according to several declassified FBI files, was given an overdose of electric shocks, at a mental clinic, when he was seeking help for depression; something that later drove him to suicide. But he dared, and others dared, as well.

*

I spent time in the deep south of the country, when I was young. I used to drive around, tempting fate with my New York license plates. I listened to countless stories in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama and Texas. It was all depressing, as it was all enormously powerful.

The United States is a segregated country. If they tell you it is not, they lie. It was, when I lived there, and it still is, now. They hit you with political correctness in order to shut you up, so you don’t say it, write it, or even hear how deeply it is divided.

But in the past, you could park yourself in a bar, somewhere in Louisiana, and take it all in. It was dangerous, unsettling, but it was true life, and if you were young, and had guts, it was the best school for writing fiction: the stories, the people, all raw, exposed, painful, and in a very twisted way, beautiful.

Paris was an escape for many. If you were born an American, and you were black, you just couldn’t live in the United States. It would crush you, humiliate you, kill you. Unless you were chasing awards, and were willing to soften things up, like Toni Morrison did at some point. But if you were like Richard Wright, one of the very best, one of the greatest, and the author of Black Boyand Native Son, you simply had to go: say it all and leave in total desperation.

I became an American, because I read Twain and Hemingway and Faulkner. And then, after I read and understood, I mean truly understood Native Son, I couldn’t, anymore; I couldn’t even live in the country. Native Sonand Another Countryby James Baldwin, broke me into pieces. I read and cried, drank myself silly, vomited, and felt as if being hit in my abdomen. It was tremendous, precise, fatal. It was the end of America: it exposed the true America, and it put a cross on top of it; a funeral cross.

*

Why am I writing all this now?

It is because America (or as they always correct it south of the border – The United States – because America is everything, from Canada to the austral tip of Argentina and Chile), with all its horror that it has spread to all corners of the world, should be and has to be understood.

Not because “it deserves to be understood”, but because the countries that were horrendously hit by it, deserve to know, what is it, that has been tormenting them, for years and decades?

But this deep, perverse, fatal United States, so well described by its tremendous writers of the past, is now totally unknown in Africa, Asia, the Middle East. Perhaps it is, to some extent, in Latin America and Europe, but almost nowhere else.

What is exported are primitive beats and computer-generated images, falsely described as films. It is that toxic food, sold in chain eateries. It is the plastic cartoon production of soulless movies for children, as well as theme parks which are destroying the imagination and ability to dream.

There is a reason for all of this.

The great literature, music and cinema of the United States, have become indigestible in the United States itself, and in the colonies. The great arts of the U.S. are actually “dangerous”, as they unveil the collapse of the country, its rotten roots, hypocrisy, arrogance and aggressiveness.

The greater the writers, the more decisive, more horrifying is their description of the Empire.

In John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, a woman who lost her child during the Great Depression, gives her breast, still full of milk, to a man, a stranger who is dying from hunger. She does it on the road. She is a mother. He is her child, a fellow American. That moment is as big as life itself; it feels like those endless open spaces of her country.

That is the America that I wanted to know. The America of which I still managed to catch a glimpse of, before it disappeared like a mirage.

But this is not America that the Western regime wants us to know.

In Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, an American high school teacher, Robert Jordan, is waiting, rifle in his hand, for the advance of fascist troops in Spain. The love of his life, Maria, a brave Spanish woman, had her head shaved; had been gang-raped. And Robert Jordan is there, to fight and to die for a socialist Spain. As Hemingway was ready to live and to die for Cuba, no matter what the Western regime has been telling us about him.

*

The thing is, if you live elsewhere, outside the United States, the chances are that you will know nothing about the real United States. You will know close to zero about the writers who stood by it, were defending its people, and were constantly confronting it, when the country turned into an empire and began behaving like a monster.

Even those writers that you know, will be fed to you in a small dose. If it is William Styron, chances are that you will be directed to his Sophia’s Choice, but not to Set This House on Fire, a novel about the deep south and its monstrous racism.

Now, frankly, the great US literature is dead. The enormous North American novel has been choked, murdered. With it died my love for American letters.

Stories are gone. People talk; they talk a lot, but I hardly hear powerful stories. Our planet is being ruined, and dozens of nations have their governments overthrown by the Empire. But where are the stories?

I want to hear stories from the occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, from the Rust Belt, from inner cities! I want to read tremendous novels exposing these topics.

Historians look back, into the past. Revolutionary writers are preoccupied with the future. I definitely belong to the second category.

I am endlessly grateful to American literature. But it is gone. I come to its tombstones, and I mourn. But after laying down some flowers in front of great names, I know that it is time to move on.

There is not one single giant of letters presently working in the United States. Full stop. Culturally, the country has collapsed. It is exporting garbage all over the world, lowering the standards of our humanity, awarding mediocrity at home and in all corners of the globe. It has choked criticism, and now it glorifies nihilism and passivity.

This is not the America that I loved and admired. That is why I do not live there, anymore, for many years. That is why I cannot create there!

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America, Where Great Literature Kicked the Bucket

Donald Trump has placed the United States on a collision course with Iran.  Why?  To begin with, Trump it seems, has a personal animus toward Iran similar to the one that Bush Jr. had against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  Bush Jr. it may be recalled, accused Saddam of having attempted to assassinate his father in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.  There was of course, no evidence for this claim.  That did not deter Bush from eventually prosecuting the 2003 war in Iraq with an eye toward vengeance.

Trump’s hostility toward Iran predated the presidential election of 2016 when he openly criticized Barak Obama for reaching the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or P5 + 1 agreement involving the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia plus Germany.  Trump falsely claimed that the agreement would not prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon despite the rigorous inspection protocols that the agreement put in place to prevent such an occurrence. Trump also made the unfounded claim that the United States was paying Iran to make the agreement.  In reality, the United States unfroze approximately $120 Billion of Iranian assets world-wide, $1.9 Billion of which were held in the United States.

Candidate Trump promised to withdraw from the agreement if elected president and once elected, made good on the promise in May of 2018 thereupon re-imposing stringent sanctions on Iran.

Since becoming president, Trump has taken other actions designed to antagonize Iran.  His first visit to a foreign country as president was to Saudi Arabia in May of 2017 where he concluded a $350 Billion arms deal with the Saudi monarchy.  Trump justified the deal as needed to counter the nefarious influence of Iran in the region.  In July 2019, Trump upped the ante by announcing an additional $8.1 arms deal with the desert Kingdom to support its war in Yemen against a Shia Houthi insurgency that the United States accuses Iran of financing and arming without evidence.

The next hostile act occurred in April 2018 when Trump and his neoconservative Secretary of State Pompeo designated Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.  It should be clearly understood that when the United States accuses Iran of supporting terrorism it means that Iran is supporting resistance to U.S. and Israeli domination in the region, a resistance the Americans  and Israelis seek to criminalize.

Then in May 2019, Iran was accused of conducting sabotage operations on four commercial ships off the coast of the United Arab Emirates.  In early May, the U.S. announced deployment of aircraft carriers, bombers and patriot missiles to the Middle East to ‘deter credible threats from Iran’.   A month later, in June of 2019, Iran was accused of attacking two oil tankers, one Norwegian and one Japanese, in the Gulf of Oman thereby significantly escalating tensions with the Islamic republic.   The timing of the attack came as the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe was visiting Tehran in an attempt to diffuse tensions with the United States.  Attacks on the oil tankers all give the appearance of false flag operations intended to provoke war with Iran as no credible evidence linking Iran to the strikes was ever presented.

Most perilously, the United States came extremely close to starting such a war when on June 20, 2019 Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. Global Hawk spy drone over the Strait of Hormuz precipitating a retaliatory bombing  attack that Trump reportedly called off at the last minute.  Trump drew back because he appeared hesitant to start yet another major conflict in the Middle East thereby jeopardizing his chances at re-election having promised as a candidate to end unnecessary and costly wars in that region.

With the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, a genuinely heroic and beloved personage in the Islamic Republic and commander of the Quds (Jerusalem) forces in Syria and Iraq, Trump crossed the Rubicon.  He did not draw back from the possibility of starting a war but instead breached a very dangerous red line that placed one million mourners in the streets of Tehran on January 5, 2020 and thousands of protesters on city streets around the world, including in the United States.  Once again, why?

Diversion from impeachment is the easy answer.  Historically, Trump has gained his most lavish support from the Washington establishment and the corporate media when ordering military strikes as he did on April 14, 2018 in Syria, falsely blaming President Assad of directing a chemical attack near Damascus. Striking Iran will not stop the pending impeachment trial in the Senate that Trump is expected to win, but it will remove the issue from the front pages of the media and allow Trump to present the trial as a distraction from the serious business of defending America.

More powerful forces are at work in the unfolding Iranian drama.  Firstly, there are the neoconservatives who dominate the foreign policy establishment in the United States.  The most visible representative of this group in the Trump administration is the aforementioned Mike Pompeo.  The neoconservatives, it may be recalled, were the chief architects of the Iraq war in 2003, but more profoundly, articulated the vision of a ‘New American Century’ of domination after the fall of the Soviet Union.  It was Paul Wolfowitz, at the behest of then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney who wrote a document titled ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ in 1992 that became known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine.  This document would subsequently serve as the template for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive and unilateral war after 911.

Neoconservative doctrine now permeates planning throughout the entire foreign policy establishment, especially in the foundations, think tanks, and policy discussion groups that constitute its core institutions. For example, an influential study published by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute in 2016 contains a detailed analysis of strategies meant to subjugate Iran by providing an extensive evaluation of the various policy options available to the United States.

Secondly, there is Israel.  The embattled Prime Minister of the apartheid state, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been tirelessly maneuvering throughout his tenure to get America into a war with Iran.  Representatives of the nuclear armed Israel fear that a nuclear enrichment program in Iran can lead to the development of weapons that will shatter its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East thereby creating a deterrent to its relentlessly aggressive and expansionist behavior.

Additionally, for Israel, Iran represents the core of an ‘arc or resistance’ that stretches from Tehran, to Damascus, to Beirut, to Gaza.  Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip are united in their opposition to Israeli domination of the Middle East and most passionately, the occupation of Palestine.  Iran supports armed resistance struggles in Lebanon and Palestine that Israel seeks to destroy by using U.S. power, lives, and treasure.  Israel has a formidable lobby that functions as an extensive network of individuals and organizations within the United States to advance this agenda unremittingly.

Thirdly, there is Saudi Arabia.  The Saudi monarchy sees Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as a ‘Shia arc’ to be defeated in the interests of Sunni domination of the region.  As a consequence, the reactionary monarchy has provided a significant portion of  material support for Daesh (ISIS) along with promoting its barbaric ideology of Wahhabism.  Israel, Qatar and Turkey are also involved in arming Daesh.

Fourthly, there is a militarized national security state at the core of the American power structure that operates to protect an American global corporate empire.  The U. S. military is extensively deployed throughout the Middle East and has at its disposal a terribly lethal arsenal ready for use.  There is tremendous frustration within the corridors of power because of the failure of a proxy war launched by Barak Obama in 2012 to topple the Assad government in Syria, thereby isolating Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.  That war was engineered by deploying the Islamic foot soldiers of Daesh.  Daesh was defeated in Syria at the hands of the Syrian Army, the Iranian Quds force, Hezbollah fighters and Russian air power.

Consequently, there is a profound desire to reverse the loss in Syria.  The failure of proxy war makes conventional war more likely.  The assassination of General Suleimani is particularly relevant in this context because he was the Iranian general who was instrumental in bringing about the defeat of the Daesh terror group in Syria and Iraq.  As Iran has vowed revenge for the assassination, Trump tweeted what amounts to a terrorist threat of retaliation indicating the United States would hit 52 sites in Iran if its forces struck back at the United States, a number corresponding to the 52 American hostages seized during the 1979 Islamic revolution.  Imperialism never forgets and it never forgives.

Congressional democrats, for their part, are angry at Trump for not consulting with them prior to ordering the attack on Suleimani.  There is some merit in this position in that only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war and under the War Powers Act of 1973 needs to be consulted within 48 hours of the use of military force and must grant approval within 60 days for its continuation.  However, the democrats share Trump’s hostility to Iran and will present no serious obstacle to war aside from procedural and rhetorical objections.

That obstacle must come from a re-energized international anti-war movement that has been dormant for far too long and must quickly awaken to stay the hand of an American terror state bent on destroying its adversaries.

*

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.

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics ofTerrorism, and is available at amazon.com

Featured image is from The Duran


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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.

For the first time in the history of Iran, a red flag was raised over the Holy Dome of Jamkaran Mosque in the holy city of Qom both symbolizing blood spilled unjustly and serving as a call to avenge a person who is killed. “Those who want to avenge the blood of Hussein,” read the words of the war flag. This was done in honor of General Qassem Suleimani, who, along with several other Iranian and Iraqi commanders, was assassinated in US strikes on Baghdad. The red flag was not even raised during the Iran-Iraq war (September 22, 1980 – August 20, 1988), the longest and bloodiest conflict in the history of modern Iran, known in it as the Holy Defense.

The raised flag demonstrates both the Iranian resolve to respond to the act of state terrorism committed by the United States and the significance of the personality of Soleimani for the state and nation. The general, once described by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “living martyr of the revolution”, was the most effective battlefield commander of the modern world and one of the key people behind the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In March 2019, Soleimani was awarded the Order of Zulfaqar, Iran’s highest military order.

During his life Suleimani was a living legend overseeing operations abroad, achieving key military diplomatic victories and spreading Tehran’s influence around the Middle East. After his death he has become an icon of the resistance both in Iran and in a large part of the Arab world. His assassination drastically increased the likelihood of an open military conflict between the US and Iran, a conflict which could easily set the entire region on fire.

Born to an impoverished family in 1957, Soleimani joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) after the Iranian revolution in 1979. He rose to prominence commanding troops during the Iran-Iraq War. After the war, Soleimani largely disappeared from public view until 2011, when he took over the IRGC’s expeditionary Qods Force and was promoted to Major General by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Over the course of his career, he developed close ties with Kurdish groups in Iraq, assisted Hezbollah in Lebanon and led Iranian military operations assisting Syrian and Iraqi troops in battles against terrorists, primarily ISIS. Soleimani was frequently pictured on key frontlines from Iraq’s Mosul to Syria’s Aleppo. For example, in 2014, he helped to forge the defense of Baghdad against encroaching ISIS terrorists. In 2015  he assisted the Iraqi government in operations to retake the oil-rich city of Tikrit from ISIS. In 2017 the General took personal command of the battle against ISIS in Syria’s Bukamal. The success of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian coalition in the Syrian war can to a great extent be attributed to actions of the Qods Force leader and the Russian military power backing him. In Yemen, Soleimani’s Qods Force successfully helped local resistance forces to break the plans of the invading coalition led by Saudi Arabia. Thus, Ansar Allah (also known as the Houthis) kept Yemen’s capital in their hands, spread the war onto the territory of Saudi Arabia and de-facto achieved a military victory in a conflict with a numerically superior and technologically advanced enemy. Iranian media repeatedly reported on assassination plots against the commander by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The outcome of the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen undermined the positions of these powers in the region, thus creating a vacuum which Iran proceeded to fill.

The role of Soleimani for the Iranian nation can be compared to that of Soviet ‘Marshal of Victory’ Georgy Zhukov in 1945, taking into account the difference in scale of the wars and victories, as well as the different geography and historical period. Soleimani’s popularity was such that there was speculation that he might run for president. In 2016, a poll showed that 76% of Iranians held a favorable view of him, with more than half reporting a “very favorable” opinion. He denied the rumors, saying he hoped to remain a soldier until the end of his life.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for three days of mourning, saying Soleimani’s death will double the motivation of the resistance against the US and Israel. Khamenei emphasized that harsh revenge awaits the “criminals” who killed Soleimani. Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in Iraq and Iran mourning his death and condemning the US aggression, which is viewed by many as a declaration of 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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

At this time, it is up to Israel whether or not war occurs between the US and Iran.  Israel very much wants this war as a means of putting Iran and Syria into chaos, thus leaving Hezbollah isolated and unsupplied.  Then Israel can succeed in occupying southern Lebanon.

The American neoconservatives want Iran in chaos, because then the chaos can be exported into the Muslim regions of the Russian Federation with the purpose of causing sufficient internal turmoil to remove Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism.

Israel and the Neocons have Trump where they want him.  Trump’s outrageous and reckless murder of Qasem Soleimani has provoked serious Iranian threats against the US to which Trump has replied with threats.  Although there is some indication that Trump has realized his mistake and is trying to calm the situation, a calmed situation is not what Israel and the neoconservatives want.  

Polls of the American public indicate that anti-Iranian propaganda has succeeced.  All Israel or the neoconservatives, who are well placed, need to do is to conduct a false flag attack on some American entity, military base, personnel or ship, and blame it on Iran.  The American press will demand Iranian blood and so will most of Trump’s constituency.  As Trump has already committed himself to a response, he will have to deliver.

All wars have unknown and unintended consequences.  As a result of Putin’s caution, Iran lacks sufficient air defense to prevent saturation bombing of the country.  Washington would send in jihadists rather than its own soldiers, and the jihadist assignment would be to carry turmoil into Russia.

If it looked like Iran was prevailing in the conflict with the US, Trump would save the day for himself by nuking Iran.  Indeed, some of the American rightwing are already calling for nuking Iran.  

Rather than speculate on the consequences, I ask, “why risk them?”

A defensive alliance between Russia, Iran, and China, and any others inclined to join, would tie Israel’s hands and prevent the outbreak of war.  Neither Trump nor Natanyahu are going to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran.

The reason US and Israeli aggression continue unabated is that no defense alliance has formed against them.  

As an attack on Iran is an attack on Russia, forming a defensive alliance is a way to prevent the attack, perhaps the only way.  An alliance would simply be a formalization of the implied, de facto alliance that already exists.  It would actually reduce the threat against Iran and Russia and is the surest way of stabilizing the dangerous situation.

*

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. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Iraq’s parliament met on Sunday and passed a resolution asking all 5,200 US troops to be expelled.  After hearing of the Iraqi decision, US President Trump refused the request, balking at the democratic process of an elected body of a sovereign nation, and insisted,  “We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it,” referring to a US air force base in Iraq, one of 12 US military facilities there.  US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “We are confident the Iraqi people will want the U.S. to remain.” He also disregarded the democratic process in Iraq, in which the parliament represents the ‘Iraqi people’.

Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mehdi attended the special session and urged lawmakers to take action to end the presence of foreign troops, which has been debated for years, by the Iraqi people and their representatives, who feel the US military presence is unwelcome and is an occupation force. The legality of the resolution rests on the charge that the US military has breached the original agreement of 2014, to enter Iraq to fight ISIS, by 2 attacks which killed Iraqi soldiers and a top Iraqi military official, among others.

“The government commits to revoke its request for assistance from the international coalition fighting Islamic State due to the end of military operations in Iraq and the achievement of victory,” and “The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.” the resolution read. “We want the government to end US presence in Iraq,” said 24-year-old Ahmed Hassan, adding, “That’s the least Iraq can do right now.”

Iraq declared victory over ISIS in December 2017, and that should have ended the Iraq-US agreement of 2014 which saw US military presence requested to fight ISIS, alongside Iraqi forces and militias.  The US military presence was seen as a ‘guest who overstays their welcome’, which fueled anti-American sentiments in a country which suffered a past US invasion in 2003, and devastating occupation, which Iraq has never recovered from.

Riyad Muhammad Ali Al Masoudi, an Iraqi MO said,

“We do not want to create a political or security void in this regard. What do we really want, is to preserve the Iraqi sovereignty and political future of the country. We hope this agreement will serve in the interests of Iraq, and will not be used against Iraq.”

Timeline of recent events:

December 27: a US civilian contractor was killed, and 4 US soldiers injured in an unclaimed attack on Kirkuk in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

December 29: the US attacked 3 Iraqi militia bases killing 24 Iraqi soldiers, and injuring dozens more in 5 airstrikes.

December 30:  Iraqi PM Mehdi says Iraq must review their relationship with the US because of the killing of Iraqi soldiers.

December 31: the US embassy in Baghdad came under heavy attack because of the killing of Iraqi soldiers.

January 3: Iranian Major-General Qasim Soleimani and Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, of the Popular Mobilization Forces, were assassinated near Baghdad’s international airport, as they arrived from Damascus,  in drone-strike ordered by Trump.

January 5: the Iraqi Parliament passes a resolution to evict the US troops.

Calls for unity among the resistance

Since the US killings of soldiers and their commanders, a rare show of unity is called for by rival political leaders in Iraq. Iraqi cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, sent a letter to parliament, which listed demands including cancellation of the US-Iraqi agreement, the closure of the US embassy, the expulsion of US troops, and the prohibition of communicating with the US.  “Finally, I call specifically on the Iraqi resistance groups and the groups outside Iraq more generally to meet immediately and announce the formation of the International Resistance Legions.”, said Sadr, who leads the largest bloc in parliament.

Why they hate us

Lesley Stahl, of the US TV program “60 Minutes” interviewed Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and speaking of US sanctions against Iraq she asked, “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?” Madeleine Albright answered, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”

From 2003 to 2006 approximately 655,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the US invasion, according to ‘The Lancet’ study.

History of the occupation

The US invaded Iraq in 2003, and shortly after the fall of Baghdad, one Iraqi said, “We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam’s regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis.” The US refused to heed the call for Iraqi freedom and democracy.  President Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ in May 2003, but refused to bring the troops home.  By 2007, polls showed 78 % of Iraqis opposed the US occupation, and at one time the poll surged to 92 %.  Although the US eventually left, the redeployment to Iraq in 2014 has morphed into a new occupation.

China lends hand

“We belong to Asia, and we want to be part of its rise,” Iraqi PM Mahdi said on a visit to Beijing. Iraq is suffering from infrastructure failures that have never been repaired since the US invasion and destruction.  Iraq and China signed 8 agreements on Mahdi’s visit, for projects including roads, rail networks, houses, ports, hospitals, schools, water dams, energy, and transport. The project will start with a $10 billion line of credit, to be paid from oil exported to China.

Iraq-Syria border opens for business

Iraq reopened its Qaim border-crossing with Syria in September after eight years of closure and completes the Tehran to Beirut road.  Qaim and the Syrian side of Bou Kamal were both freed from ISIS occupation by militias of both nations, as well as the Syrian Arab Army.

Iraq experts were wary when the border connecting Baghdad to Damascus was opened, and after the China-Iraq deals were signed they wondered when the US would take action to stop progress and to keep Iraq in the chaos which is the US strategic plan and cements the US troops in Iraq and Syria.  Now, those same experts are wondering if the next step in Iraq will be to pull off a coup, replacing the defiant PM Mahdi with an Ahmed Chalabi clone.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Qual é a verdadeira ameaça nuclear no Médio Oriente?

January 7th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

«O Irão não respeita os acordos nucleares» (Il Tempo), «O Irão retira-se dos acordos nucleares: um passo em direcção à bomba atómica» (Corriere della Sera), «O Irão prepara bombas atómicas: adeus ao acordo sobre o nuclear »(Libero): é assim apresentada por quase toda a comunicação mediática a decisão do Irão – após o assassinato do General Soleimani ordenado pelo Presidente Trump – de não aceitar mais os limites para o enriquecimento de urânio, estabelecidos pelo acordo assinado em 2015 com o Grupo 5 + 1, ou seja, os cinco membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança da ONU (Estados Unidos, França, Reino Unido, Rússia, China) e a Alemanha. Portanto, não há dúvida, segundo estes meios de divulgação de “informação”, sobre qual é a ameaça nuclear no Médio Oriente. Esquecem-se que foi o Presidente Trump, em 2018, que fez com que os EUA se retirassem do acordo definido por Israel  como “a rendição do Ocidente ao Eixo do Mal, liderado pelo Irão”. Silenciam o facto de que existe apenas uma única potência nuclear no Médio Oriente, Israel, que não está sujeita a nenhum controlo, visto que não adere ao Tratado de Não-Proliferação, assinado pelo Irão.

O arsenal israelita, envolto numa espessa capa de segredo e de silêncio, é estimado em  80-400 ogivas nucleares, além de plutónio suficiente para construir outras centenas. Israel também produz, seguramente, trítio, o gás radioactivo com o qual fabrica armas nucleares de nova geração. Entre estas, mini-bombas nucleares e bombas de neutrões que, provocando menor contaminação radioactiva, seriam as mais adequadas contra alvos não muito distantes de Israel. As ogivas nucleares israelitas estão prontas para serem lançadas em mísseis balísticos que, com o Jericó 3, atingem de 8 a 9 mil km de alcance. A Alemanha forneceu a Israel (sob a forma de um presente ou a preços promocionais) quatro submarinos Dolphin modificados para o lançamento de mísseis nucleares Popeye Turbo, com um alcance de cerca de 1.500 km. Silenciosos e capazes de permanecer imersos durante uma semana, atravessam o Mediterrâneo Oriental, o Mar Vermelho e o Golfo Pérsico, prontos 24 sobre 24 horas, para o ataque nuclear.

Os Estados Unidos, que já forneceram mais de 350 caça-bombardeiros F-16 e F-15 a Israel, estão a fornecer-lhe pelo menos 75 caças F-35, também com dupla capacidade nuclear e convencional. Uma primeira entrega de F-35 israelitas entrou em operação em Dezembro de 2017. As Israel Aerospace Industries produzem componentes de asas que tornam o F-35 invisível aos radares. Graças a essa tecnologia, que também será aplicada nos F-35 italianos, Israel potencia a capacidade de ataque das suas forças nucleares.

Israel – que tem apontadas contra o Irão 200 armas nucleares, como especificou o antigo Secretário de Estado dos EUA, Colin Powell, em 2015 – está decidido a manter o monopólio da Bomba no Médio Oriente, impedindo o Irão de desenvolver um programa nuclear civil, que poderia permitir-lhe um dia fabricar armas nucleares, capacidade  essa que hoje é possuída no mundo por dezenas de países. No ciclo de utilização do urânio, não há uma linha divisória clara entre o uso civil e o uso militar do material físsil. Para bloquear o programa nuclear iraniano, Israel está determinado a usar todos os meios. O assassinato de quatro cientistas nucleares iranianos entre 2010 e 2012 é, provavelmente, obra do Mossad.

As forças nucleares israelitas estão integradas no sistema electrónico da NATO, como parte do “Programa de Cooperação Individual” com Israel, um país que, embora não seja membro da Aliança, tem uma missão permanente no quartel general da NATO, em Bruxelas. Segundo o plano testado no exercício USA-Israel Juniper Cobra 2018, as forças USA e NATO viriam da Europa (sobretudo das bases em Itália) para apoiar Israel numa guerra contra o Irão. Ela poderia iniciar-se com um ataque israelita às instalações nucleares iranianas, como o que foi efectuado em 1981 contra o reactor iraquiano de Osiraq. O Gerusalem Post (3 de Janeiro) confirma que Israel possui bombas não nucleares anti-bunker, utilizáveis ​​especialmente com os F-35, capazes de atingir a instalação nuclear subterrânea em Fordow. O Irão, no entanto, apesar de estar livre de armas nucleares, possui uma capacidade de resposta militar que a Jugoslávia, o Iraque ou a Líbia não possuíam no momento do ataque USA/NATO. Nesse caso, Israel poderia usar uma arma nuclear pondo em movimento uma reacção em cadeia de consequências imprevisíveis.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Qual è la vera minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente

il manifesto, 7 de Janeiro 2020

Tradutora : Luisa Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Qual é a verdadeira ameaça nuclear no Médio Oriente?

Qual è la vera minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente

January 7th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

«L’Iran non rispetta gli accordi sul nucleare» (Il Tempo), «L’Iran si ritira dagli accordi nucleari: un passo verso la bomba atomica» (Corriere della Sera), «L’Iran prepara le bombe atomiche: addio all’accordo sul nucleare» (Libero): così viene presentata da quasi tutti i media la decisione dell’Iran, dopo l’assassinio del generale Soleimani ordinato dal presidente Trump, di non accettare più i limiti per l’arricchimento dell’uranio previsti dall’accordo stipulato nel 2015 con il Gruppo 5+1, ossia i cinque membri permanenti del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’Onu (Stati Uniti, Francia, Regno Unito, Russia, Cina) più la Germania. Non vi è quindi dubbio, secondo questi organi di «informazione», su quale sia la minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente. Dimenticano che è stato il presidente Trump, nel 2018, a far ritirare gli Usa dall’accordo, che Israele aveva definito «la resa dell’Occidente all’asse del male guidato dall’Iran». Tacciono sul fatto che vi è in Medio Oriente un’unica potenza nucleare, Israele, la quale non è sottoposta ad alcun controllo poiché non aderisce al Trattato di non-proliferazione, sottoscritto invece dall’Iran.

L’arsenale israeliano, avvolto da una fitta cappa di segreto e omertà, viene stimato in 80-400 testate nucleari, più abbastanza plutonio da costruirne altre centinaia. Israele produce sicuramente anche trizio, gas radioattivo con cui fabbrica armi nucleari di nuova generazione. Tra queste mini-nukes e bombe neutroniche che, provocando minore contaminazione radioattiva, sarebbero le più adatte contro obiettivi non tanto distanti da Israele. Le testate nucleari israeliane sono pronte al lancio su missili balistici che, con il Jericho 3, raggiungono 8-9 mila km di gittata. La Germania ha fornito a Israele (sotto forma di dono o a prezzi scontati) quattro sottomarini Dolphin modificati per il lancio di missili nucleari Popeye Turbo, con raggio di circa 1.500 km. Silenziosi e capaci di restare in immersione per una settimana, incrociano nel Mediterraneo Orientale, Mar Rosso e Golfo Persico, pronti ventiquattro’ore su ventiquattro all’attacco nucleare.

Gli Stati uniti, che hanno già fornito a Israele oltre 350 cacciabombardieri F-16 e F-15, gli stanno fornendo almeno 75 caccia F-35, anch’essi a duplice capacità nucleare e convenzionale. Una prima squadra di F-35 israeliani è divenuta operativa nel dicembre 2017. Le Israel Aerospace Industries producono componenti delle ali che rendono gli F-35 invisibili ai radar. Grazie a tale tecnologia, che sarà applicata anche agli F-35 italiani, Israele potenzia le capacità di attacco delle sue forze nucleari.

Israele – che tiene puntate contro l’Iran 200 armi nucleari, come ha specificato l’ex segretario di stato Usa Colin Powell nel 2015 – è deciso a mantenere il monopolio della Bomba in Medio Oriente, impedendo all’Iran di sviluppare un programma nucleare civile che potrebbe permettergli un giorno di fabbricare armi nucleari, capacità posseduta oggi nel mondo da decine di paesi. Nel ciclo di sfruttamento dell’uranio non esiste una netta linea di demarcazione tra uso civile e uso militare del materiale fissile. Per bloccare il programma nucleare iraniano Israele è deciso a usare ogni mezzo. L’assassinio di quattro scienziati nucleari iraniani, tra il 2010 e il 2012, è con tutta probabilità opera del Mossad.

Le forze nucleari israeliane sono integrate nel sistema elettronico Nato, nel quadro del «Programma di cooperazione individuale» con Israele, paese che, pur non essendo membro della Alleanza, ha una missione permanente al quartier generale della Nato a Bruxelles. Secondo il piano testato nella esercitazione Usa-Israele Juniper Cobra 2018, forze Usa e Nato arriverebbero dall’Europa (soprattutto dalle basi in Italia) per sostenere Israele in una guerra contro l’Iran. Essa potrebbe iniziare con un attacco israeliano agli impianti nucleari iraniani, tipo quello effettuato nel 1981 contro l’impianto iracheno di Osiraq. Il Gerusalem Post (3 gennaio) conferma che Israele possiede bombe non-nucleari anti-bunker, usabili soprattutto con gli F-35, in grado di colpire l’impianto nucleare sotterraneo iraniano di Fordow. L’Iran però, pur essendo privo di armi nucleari, ha una capacità militare di risposta che non possedevano la Jugoslavia, l’Iraq o la Libia al momento dell’attacco Usa/Nato. In tal caso Israele potrebbe far uso di un’arma nucleare mettendo in moto una reazione a catena dagli esiti imprevedibili.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 7 gennaio 2020

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Qual è la vera minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente

America’s hegemonic military agenda in the Middle East has reached a dangerous threshold.

The assassination of  IRGC General Soleimani ordered by the President of the United States on January 3, 2020 is tantamount to an Act of War against Iran.

President Donald Trump accused Soleimani  of “plotting imminent and sinister attacks”: “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war…. we caught him in the act and terminated him.”

US Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper described it as a “decisive defensive action” while confirming that the operation ordered by POTUS had been carried out by the Pentagon. “The game has changed” said Esper.  

What the media has failed to acknowledge is General Soleimani’s central role in countering ISIS-Daesh and Al Qaeda terrorists in both Iraq and Syria. 

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC) under the helm of General Soleimani consisted in waging a real counter-terrorism campaign against ISIS-Daesh mercenaries, who from the outset were funded, trained and recruited by the US and its allies.

Trump’s action plan to “stop a war” consists in “protecting” America’s ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliated foot-soldiers.

US Extrajudicial Assassinations

While the assassination of General Soleimani constitutes a criminal act on the part of President Trump,  the US practice of extrajudicial assassinations of foreign politicians has a long history.

What distinguishes the assassination of General Soleimani from previous extrajudicial killings, is that the president of the US has formally announced that he gave the order.

This sets a dangerous precedent. It was “overt” rather than “covert”, i.e. a covert operation by the CIA or by a US sponsored Al Qaeda affiliate acting on behalf of Washington.

It is important to note that it was not Trump but in fact Obama who formalized (“legalized”) the practice of extra-judicial assassination (ordered by the president):

And if the president [Obama] can kill anyone, including US citizens, without judicial review, what power does he not have? Any but the most formal distinction between democracy and presidential dictatorship is swept away. (Joseph Kishore, wsws.org, October 31, 2012)

Trump’s Response: More Troops to the Middle East

While the Pentagon announced that it is “sending thousands of additional troops to the Middle East”, a unanimous vote in Iraq’s parliament was reached demanding the immediate withdrawal of all US forces.

The legislation requires the Iraqi government to “end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil and prevent the use of Iraqi airspace, soil and water for any reason”.

Note: Death to  America: refers to the US Government, Not the American People

Backflash: A Digression. The Obama Air Raids (2014-2017)

Concurrently the Iraqi parliament suspended the corrupt 2014 agreement with the Obama administration which invited the US to lead a fake counterterrorism operation directed against the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh), made up of mercenaries who are funded, trained and recruited by US-NATO, with the support of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The decision of the Iraqi parliament is in this regard fundamental. This operation was used by the Obama administration as a pretext to justify a third phase of the Iraq War (1991, 2003, 2014). Initiated in June 2014 by Obama under the disguise of a counterterrorism operation, a new phase of killing and destruction was launched.

Why was the US Air Force unable to wipe out the Islamic State which at the outset was largely equipped with conventional small arms not to mention state of the art Toyota pickup trucks?

F-15E Strike Eagle.jpgFrom the very outset, Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama’s air campaign was NOT directed at ISIS.  The evidence confirms that the Islamic State was not the target. Quite the opposite. The air raids were intended to destroy the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria.

Look at the following image which describes the Islamic State convoy of pickup trucks entering Iraq fromn Syria and crossing a 200 km span of open desert which separates the two countries.

This convoy entered Iraq in June 2014.

What would have been required from a military standpoint to wipe out an ISIS convoy with no effective anti-aircraft capabilities?

Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails. 

If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June 2014. 

The  Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory (see map right). With state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, F16) it would have been  –from a military standpoint–  “a piece of cake”, a rapid and expedient surgical operation, which would have decimated the Islamic State convoys in a matter of hours.

But if that had happened, they would not have been able to implement their “Responsibility to Protect” (P2R) bombing campaign over a three year period (2014-2017).

Instead what we witnessed were drawn out relentless air raids and bombings which culminated with the so-called liberation of Mosul (February 2017) and Raqqa (October 2017) by the US led coalition.

And we were led to believe that the Islamic State had the upper hand and could not be defeated by a powerful US led military coalition of 19 countries.

The people of Iraq and Syria were the targets. Obama’s bombing raids were intent upon destroying the civilian infrastructure of Iraq and Syria.

ISIS-Daesh were never the target of US aggression. Quite the opposite. They were protected by the Western military alliance.

US Troop Withdrawal: Yankee Go Home (2020)

While a major US troop withdrawal is unlikely in the foreseeable future,  “America’s War on Terrorism” is in jeopardy. Nobody believes that America is going after the terrorists.

In Iraq and Syria, everybody knows that all Al Qaeda, ISIS-Daesh affiliated entities are supported by US-NATO.

The “Yankee Go Home” process has commenced.  The US is not only being ousted from Iraq and Syria, its strategic presence in the broader Middle East is also threatened. And these two processes are intimately related.

In turn, several of America’s former allies including Turkey, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Egypt have normalized their relations with Iran.

Trump’s Punitive Bombings. Will They be Carried Out?

In recent developments, Trump has warned that if Tehran responds to the assassination of General Soleimani, he will “target 52 Iranian sites” intimating that they would be “HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.”

Donald Trump wants to hit back. But he has a serious logistical problem on his hands of which he may not even be aware of.

Normally a punitive operation of this nature directed against Iran would be entrusted to USCENTCOM’s forward headquarters in the Middle East located at the Al Udeid Air Force base in Qatar.

“CENTCOM controls US forces based across the Middle East and some of Central Asia – in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s main headquarters are located in Tampa Florida but it runs its daily combat operations from Al-Udeid air base 

With 11,000 US military personnel, the al-Udeid Air Force base close to Doha is “one of the U.S. military’s most enduring and most strategically positioned operations on the planet”   (Washington Times). It has led and coordinated several major Middle East war theaters including Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003). It was also involved in Syria.

But there is a problem: The forward base of USCENTCOM at the al-Udeid Air Force base is in Qatar. And since June 2017 Qatar has been “sleeping with the enemy”. Qatar has become a staunch ally of Iran.

What both the media, as well as foreign policy and military analysts fail to acknowledge is that US CENTCOM’s Forward Base headquarters at the al-Udeid military base de facto “lies in enemy territory”. And it would seem that POTUS is totally unaware of this situation.

Barely a few months ago, (October 2019), The Pentagon took the decision NOT to move USCENTCOM’s forward base at Al Udeid to another location in the Middle East.

“Qatar has always been an exceptional partner, and this base from which we are operating is a great base, and CENTCOM has no intention of moving anywhere,” said CENTCOM’s deputy commander, Chance Saltzman.

Sloppy intelligence, flawed military planning? Qatar is not an “exceptional partner”. Since June 2017 Qatar has become a de facto ally of Iran.

More recently, they have been discussing the establishment of Iran-Qatar bilateral military ties.

Having decided that Al Udeid (located in enemy territory) could not be moved to another location in the Middle East, the Pentagon then envisaged a scenario of moving Al Udeid air and space operations to South Carolina: “to 7,000 miles away in South Carolina”. It was a simulation. “The temporary switch” lasted only 24 hours.

Lessons Learnt: You cannot effectively “wage war” in the Middle East without a “Forward Base” in the Middle East. This “South Carolina Test” borders on ridicule.

Are US military planners desperate?

Since May 2017, following the break up of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) the Pentagon has NOT BEEN ABLE TO MOVE USCENTCOM FORWARD BASE (including its air force striking capabilities) OUT OF ENEMY TERRITORY (QATAR) to a “friendly location” (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Israel) in the broader Middle East region.

Military analysts now admit that in the case of a conflict with Iran, Al-Udeid would be an immediate target. “The base’s defence system is said to be ill-equipped to defend itself against the low-flying cruise missiles and drones…”

Mr. President: How on earth can you launch your punitive bombings on Iran from the territory of a close ally of Iran? 

From a strategic point of view it does not make sense. And this is but the tip of the iceberg.

While the bombing and missile attacks can be dispatched from other US military bases in the Middle East (see diagram below) as well as from Diego Garcia, US aircraft carriers, submarines, etc, the regional USCENTCOM Forward Base at Al-Udeid, Qatar, plays a key role in the command structure in liaison with USCENTCOM headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.

Source: Statista 

While Qatar and the US have a longstanding bilateral cooperation agreement pertaining to the al-Udeid Air Force base, Qatar has military cooperation agreements not only with Iran but also with Hamas and Hezbollah, all of which are “enemies” of the USA:

The challenge for Washington is that while Qatar hosts al-Udeid, it’s also friendly with the Gaza-based Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), it is close to the Hezbollah’s leadership … [Qatar also] has cozy relations with Iran. Indeed, if Qatar didn’t host America’s largest air base in the Middle East, it would be under pressure from the U.S. to cease much of this behavior.”

And to top it off, Qatar is also friends with Russia. A military technical cooperation agreement pertaining  to air defense was signed with Moscow, immediately following Qatar’s rift with Saudi Arabia in June 2017.

Turkey’s Incirlik Air Force Base 

“A sleeping with the enemy situation” also prevails with regard to Turkey’s Incirlik Air Force base which was established in the 1950s by the US Air Force. Incirlik has played a strategic role in all US-NATO led operations in the Middle East.

With about five thousand airmen, the US Air Force is now hosted in a country (aka Turkey) which is an ally of both Russia and Iran. Turkey and Iran are neighbouring states with friendly relations. In contrast, US and Turkish supported rebels are fighting one another in Northern Syria.

In mid-December 2019, Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu  dropped a bombshell, intimating  “that the United States could be barred from using two strategic air bases [Incirlik and Kurecik] in retaliation to possible US sanctions against his country” regarding Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile defence system.

America’s Conventional Warfare Capabilities

For several reasons, US hegemony in the Middle East has been weakened in part as a result of the evolving structure of military alliances.

America’s command capabilities have been weakened. Two of the region’s largest strategic Air Forces bases, namely Incirlik (Turkey) and Al-Udeid (Qatar) are no longer under the control of the Pentagon.

While war against Iran remains on the drawing board of the Pentagon, under present conditions, an all out Blitzkrieg (conventional theater war) involving the simultaneous deployment of ground, air and naval  forces is an impossibility.

While the US does not have the ability to carry out such a project, various forms of “limited warfare” have been contemplated including targeted missile attacks, so-called “bloody nose operations” (including the use of tactical nuclear weapons), as well as acts of political destabilization and color revolutions (which are already ongoing) as well as economic sanctions, manipulations of financial markets and neoliberal macroeconomic reforms (imposed via the IMF and the World Bank(.

The Nuclear Option against Iran

And it is precisely because of US weaknesses in the realm of conventional warfare that a nuclear option could be envisaged.  Such an option would inevitably lead to escalation.

Ignorance and stupidity are factors in the decision making process. According to foreign policy analyst Edward Curtin “Crazy people do crazy things”. 

Who are the crazy people in key decision-making positions?

Trump foreign policy advisers: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser Robert O’Brien and Brian Hook, (Special Representative for Iran and Advisor to Pompeo), could “advise” President Trump to authorize  a “bloody nose operation” against Iran using tactical (B61 bunker buster) nuclear weapons, which the Pentagon has categorized as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”.

The bloody nose operation” as designated by the Pentagon, conveys the idea of a military op (using a low yield “more usable” tactical nuclear weapon) which allegedly “creates minimum damage”. It’s a lie: the tactical nuclear weapon has an explosive capacity between one third and 12 times a Hiroshima bomb.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (July 2019):

Tensions between the United States and Iran are spiraling toward a military confrontation that carries a real possibility that the United States will use nuclear weapons. Iran’s assortment of asymmetrical capabilities—all constructed to be effective against the United States—nearly assures such a confrontation. The current US nuclear posture leaves the Trump administration at least open to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional theaters. Some in the current administration may well think it to be in the best interest of the United States to seek a quick and decisive victory in the oil hub of the Persian Gulf—and to do so by using its nuclear arsenal.

We believe there is a heightened possibility of a US-Iran war triggering a US nuclear strike…

Of significance, the use of tactical nukes does not require the authorization of the Commander in Chief. That authorization pertains solely to so-called strategic nuclear weapons.

Despite the warnings of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, present circumstances do not favor the conduct of a  US “bloody nose” tactical nuclear weapons’ operation.

The US Air Force’s tactical nuclear weapons arsenal is stored and deployed in five non-nuclear European countries including Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey at military bases under national command.  

According to Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2019 report), the US possesses an estimated 230 tactical nuclear weapons of which 180 are deployed in the five non-nuclear European countries. Some 50 B61 bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (gravity bombs) are stored and deployed at the Incirlik air force base which is under Turkey’s jurisdiction. (see table above)

Conclusion:

  • A US president committed to war crimes.
  • A failing  “War on Terrorism” narrative,
  • Weakened military command structures,
  • Failing alliances,
  • Sleeping with the enemy,
  • Unpredictable foreign policy analysts,
  • Deception and mistakes.

At this juncture: The US’ most powerful weapon remains dollarization, neoliberal economic reforms and the ability to manipulate financial markets.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on America, An Empire on its Last Leg: To be Kicked Out from the Middle East?

Don’t Militarize the Heavens

January 7th, 2020 by Prof. Karl Grossman

President Donald Trump has signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 that establishes a Space Force as the sixth branch of the U.S. armed forces — despite the landmark Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which designated space as a global commons to be used for peaceful purposes.

The treaty was put together by the United States, the former Soviet Union and Britain, and since has been signed by many nations. Craig Eisendrath, a U.S. State Department officer involved in its creation, has said that “we sought to de-weaponize space before it got weaponized … to keep war out of space.”

It prohibits the placement of any weapons of mass destruction in space. Although the Trump administration has said a Space Force is necessary because Russia and China are moving into space militarily, Russia, China and Canada have led for decades in pushing for an expansion of the treaty. They’ve advocated for the UN’s Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space resolution, which would affirm a ban on weapons in space. The United States has opposed the PAROS resolution and has effectively vetoed it at the UN.

At the defense authorization act signing Dec. 20, Trump said forming a Space Force marked “a big moment.” He said: “Space. Going to be a lot of things happening in space. Because space is the world’s newest warfighting domain.”

Trump’s advocacy for a Space Force started as a joke. National Public Radio’s Claudia Grisales related that in March 2018 “Trump riffed on an idea he called ‘Space Force’ before a crowd of Marines in San Diego. It drew laughs.” Subsequently, he noted: “I said, ‘Maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force.’ And I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea, maybe we’ll have to do that.’ ”

I’ve investigated the possibility of space becoming a war arena since President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” in the 1980s. This has included writing a book, “Weapons in Space,” and writing and narrating three TV documentaries. I’ve been to Russia several times, and I’ve been to China. What these nations want is the PAROS initiative and not to waste their national treasuries on weapons in space.

I recall sitting with Chinese diplomats after I spoke at a UN conference on the threat of weaponization of space. They stressed how they need to feed, educate, house and provide health care to their people. My speech was followed by the Chinese UN ambassador who said his nation sought to keep space for peace.

But if we move ahead with a Space Force, China and Russia, and other countries, will respond in kind. China and Russia won’t accept “American dominance” of space, and there would be an arms race in space.

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space protested in Florida  against space weaponization. Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell participated. He said, “Any war in space would be the one and only.” Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Maine-based Global Network, said Mitchell warned at the protest that in the event of war “activity on Earth below would immediately shut down — cell phones, ATM machines, cable TV, traffic lights, weather prediction and more — all hooked up to satellites, would be lost. Modern society would go dark.”

China has said that a U.S. Space Force would be a “direct threat” to peace. Its foreign ministry recently said the world should “adopt a cautious and responsible attitude to prevent outer space from beginning a new battlefield and work together to maintain lasting peace and tranquility in outer space.”

War in space would be calamitous.

*

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 Newsday.

Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the SUNY College at Old Westbury. He is author of “Weapons in Space” and writer and narrator of the TV documentary “Nukes in Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens.”

Featured image is from Windover Way Photography

Putin’s Hour Is at Hand

January 6th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Vladimir Putin is the most impressive leader on the world stage.  He survived and arose from a Russia corrupted by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years and reestablished Russia as a world power.  He dealt successfully with American/Israeli aggression against South Ossetia and against Ukraine, incorporating at Crimea’s request the Russian province back into Mother Russia.  He has tolerated endless insults and provocations from Washington and its empire without responding in kind.  He is conciliatory and a peacemaker from a position of strength.

He knows that the American empire based as it is on arrogance and lies is failing economically, socially, politically, and militarily.  He understands that war serves no Russian interest.  

Washington’s murder of Qasem Soleimani, a great Iranian leader, indeed, one of the rare leaders in world history, has dimmed Trump’s leadership and placed the limelight on Putin. The stage is set for Putin and Russia to assume the leadership of the world.  

Washington’s murder of Soleimani is a criminal act that could start World War 3 just as the Serbian murder of the Austrian Archduke set World War 1 in motion.  Only Putin and Russia with China’s help can stop this war that Washington has set in motion.

Putin understood that the Washington/Israeli intended destabilization of Syria was aimed at Russia.  Without warning Russia intervened, defeated the Washington financed and armed proxy forces, and restored stability to Syria. 

Defeated, Washington and Israel have decided to bypass Syria and take the attack on Russia directly to Iran.  The destabilization of Iran serves both Washington and Israel.  For Israel Iran’s demise stops support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has twice defeated Israel’s army and prevented Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon.  For Washington Iran’s demise allows CIA-supported jihadists to bring instability into the Russian Federation.

Unless Putin submits to American and Israeli will, he has no choice but to block any Washington/Israeli attack on Iran.  

The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia’s protection.  This protection should be formalized in a mutual defense treaty between Russia, China, and Iran, with perhaps India and Turkey as members. This is hard for Putin to do, because incompetent historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war.  But an alliance such as this would prevent war.  Not even the insane criminal Netanyahu and the crazed American neoconservatives would, even when completely drunk or deluded, declare war on Iran, Russia,  China, and if included in the alliance India and Turkey.  It would mean the death of America, Israel and any European country sufficiently stupid to participate.

If Putin is unable to free himself from the influence of incompetent historians, who in effect are serving Washington, not Russian, interests, he has other options.  He can calm down Iran by giving Iran the best Russian air defense systems with Russian crews to train the Iranians and whose presence serve as a warning to Washington and Israel that an attack on Russian forces is an attack on Russia.

This done, Putin  can then, not offer, but insist on mediating.  This is Putin’s role as there is no other with the power, influence and objectivity to mediate.  

Putin’s job is not so much to rescue Iran as to get Trump out of a losing war that would destroy Trump. Putin could set his own price.  For example, Putin’s price can be the revival of the INF/START treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the removal of NATO from Russian borders.  In effect, Putin is positioned to demand whatever he wants.

Iranian missiles can sink any American vessels anywhere near Iran.  Chinese missiles can sink any American fleets anywhere near China.  Russian missiles can sink American fleets anywhere in the world.  The ability of Washington to project power in the Middle East now that everyone, Shia and Sunni and Washington’s former proxies such as ISIS, hates Americans with a passion is zero.  The State Department has had to order Americans out of the Middle East.  How does Washingon count as a force in the Middle East when no American is safe there? 

Of course Washington is stupid in its arrogance, and Putin, China, and Iran must take this into consideration.  A stupid government is capable of bringing ruin not only on itself but on others.

So there are risks for Putin.  But there are also risks for Putin failing to take charge.  If Washington and Israel attack Iran, which Israel will try to provoke by some false flag event as sinking an American warship and blaming Iran, Russia will be at war anyway.  Better for the initiative to be in Putin’s hands.  And better for the world and life on Earth for Russia to be in charge.

*

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.

Putin’s Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6, 2020.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin’s Hour Is at Hand

Global Research: Powered by Readers

January 6th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

We are happy to say that we started 2020 with a big surge in readership. On the other hand, we also note that out of the 300,000+ visits to our website over the past few days, very few financial contributions were made to support the running costs of our website.

We are deeply indebted to all of those who have already come to our support, your generosity is a large part of what keeps this project up and running. If the articles you read on this site help make some sense of the crazy world we live in, we kindly ask you to help keep Global Research alive by making a donation or becoming a member today. More information below:

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Thank you for keeping independent media alive!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Research: Powered by Readers

On Saturday morning December 28th, a truck bomb exploded at a busy intersection at KM 5 + security checkpoint at in Somalia’s capital, killing at least 90 people including many University students on their way to Universities outside the capital city, Hawkers, women and children authorities said. It was the worst attack in Mogadishu in more than two years, and witnesses said the force of the blast reminded them of the devastating 2017 bombing that killed hundreds, over 500 dead.

President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, PM Hassan Khaire and the entire Somali Federal Government condemned the attack as “heinous” but did not mention the likely culprit, the al-Shabab extremist group, by name.

But The Somali leadership and Public suddenly suspected and blamed this heinous vicious, immoral, genocidal terrorist act on UAE and Saudi and their Al-shabab islamist praxis’s for destroying the stability and developmental progress. In turn, the terrorist activities of Al shabab, [sponsored by foreign governments] are highlighted with a view to defaming in the eyes of world opinion (as well as estabilizing) the current pro-nationalist Somali federal government of President Farmajoo.

Al-Shabab was blamed for the truck bombing in Mogadishu in October 2017 that killed more than 500 people. The group never claimed responsibility for the blast that led to widespread public outrage. Some analysts said al-Shabab didn’t dare claim credit as its strategy of trying to sway public opinion by exposing government weakness had badly backfired.

This explosion is similar to the one in October2017 and thus, Security and intelligence people suspected that this blast like the one in 2017 is more sophisticated and deadlier and thus, it couldn’t have been a locallyimprovised explosive device(IED)   by Al Shabab. 

Historical Background

Historically, Gulf (khaleejis)(Saudi a, Emirates and Qatar) countries had culturally, commercial , social and religious inter-relations with Somalia and the peoples of the Horn of Africa from time immemorial

From early maritime seafaring and trading includes various stages of Somali navigational technology, shipbuilding and design, as well as the history of the Somali port cities. It also covers the historical sea routes taken by Somali sailors which sustained the commercial enterprises of the historical Somali kingdoms and empires, in addition to the contemporary maritime culture of Somalia.”[1]

Khaleeji Interventions in Post- Soviet Somalia. 1991-2015

From 1991 Gulf sheikhdoms were only interested in establishing  war-torn Somalia as a commercial & maritime gateway  and  markets for their sub-standard products which dominated  the whole business and commercial enterprises of  Djibouti, Eritrea,  Somalia and Sudan.

For decades, the Gulf  States (Saudi  Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar) have been buyers, rather than suppliers, of security. Relying on outside protection, they persistently avoided the use of military means. Two analysts used the term “quiet diplomacy” to describe the external policies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE during the pre-Arab spring period.

Oil and Islam have been the main leverage used by the Saudis since the 1960s, while foreign aid and personal networks were the basic policy tools of the Emiratis. Both countries were characterized by low-profile initiatives and the behind-the-scenes negotiations with their regional partners that aimed at promoting amicable relations and guaranteeing the peaceful settlement of disputes.[6] However, until very recently the Horn of Africa was a rather low priority in the foreign policies of both states of the Gulf.

Much of the Gulf’s current interest in the Horn is related to competition with Iran. The election of  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 led to increased Iranian activity in the Horn of Africa that included an alliance with Eritrea, various agreements with Djibouti, and the further strengthening of relations with Sudan.  

By the early 2010s, as Iran increased its influence in Iraq and Syria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were forced to re-examine their foreign and security policies. Their disquiet over Iranian hegemonic ambitions was further heightened in July 2015 with the nuclear agreement between Iran and the West. Saudi and UAE leaders decided to increase military and political coordination and developed a strategy to counter what they perceived as Iranian “expansionism” in the wider region.

The change in their foreign and security policies, however, is not exclusively tied to their competition with Iran; it is also related to the wider political developments brought about by the fake Arab Spring.

Concerned about the possible spillover effects of the uprisings that swept the Middle East in 2011, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE began to gradually exhibit a newfound assertiveness in international affairs, adopting at times a more active stance in their foreign involvements, and even becoming more willing to use their militaries in support of their national interests. Both countries, for example, have sent their armies to Bahrain and Libya and later to Iraq and Syria to fight against ISIS. In place of their prior “quiet diplomacy” there was increasingly a show of assertiveness and muscle flexing in response to security concerns.

The Obama administration’s fatigue with Middle Eastern affairs (Libya, Syria, the Iraq war and of course Afghanistan) and its pronounced pivot toward Asia also fueled this desire to bolster their own security “independence,” without sacrificing the strong strategic partnership with the United States. Times were changing and, having previously relied on the British until they militarily disengaged from the region, the Gulf countries had no excuse to not plan ahead. They were keenly aware of the need to avoid a repeat of history.

Saudi Arabia’s defense spending, for instance, reached a record $82 billion in 2015, and in February and March 2016 the country hosted its largest-ever joint military exercise, North Thunder, with the involvement of troops from 20 countries. In parallel, the United Arab Emirates became the world’s third-largest importer of arms. So pronounced was the shift in security concerns and the strengthening of the country’s military capabilities that James Mattis, the American defense secretary, even went so far as to characterize the UAE as a “little Sparta.”[2] While this is a highly exaggerated comparison, the UAE is looking to not only bolster its military capabilities, but also forge a greater unity and common national identity among its different Emirates through the recent institution of obligatory military service for all Emirati males.

Piracy and Islamic terrorism were among the major threats that led to the upgrade of the African Horn’s importance in the Saudi and Emirati foreign-policy agendas. Seeing threats from al-Qaeda offshoots across the Sahel to the al-Shabab movement in Somalia that had developed close ties with the Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf states recognized that across East Africa’s countries with significant Muslim populations a host of violent and extremist Islamic groups were ranged against both their interests and the security of their nations.

The war in Yemen, moreover, led to an escalation of Gulf-Iran tensions and was a major factor in persuading the Saudis and the UAE of the need to strengthen their regional presence. Both countries were apprehensive about the growth of the Shiite Houthi insurgency in Yemen and the perceived associated Iranian encroachment on the Arabian Peninsula, evaluating them as major threats. Furthermore, the perception that the United States was reluctant to contain Iran made Gulf policy makers more apprehensive. In fact, the Obama administration’s desire to quickly normalize relations with Iran was a source of both tension and contention with the Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which argued, albeit discreetly, that the United States was moving too swiftly without having obtained the guarantees necessary to assuage their traditional allies’ security concerns. When, in March 2015, Saudi Arabia and the UAE decided to militarily intervene in the Yemeni war, it became clear that they would need additional ground forces, ports and air bases. Moreover, it was imperative to secure the support of countries across the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden with whom Iran had developed close relations since the 1990s.

The Horn of Africa has a 4,000 km coastline that runs from Sudan in the north to Kenya in the south and lies astride vital Indian Ocean trade routes. At the Bab al-Mandab straits, where the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean meet, Yemen is just 30 km from Eritrea and Djibouti; and the port of Aden is closer to Mogadishu and Hargeisa than Riyadh. Gulf States estimated that Iran could threaten shipping through the Bab al-Mandab, as it has long sought to do with the Strait of Hormuz. This meant that Yemen’s location was strategic both because it represented the soft underbelly of Saudi Arabia and because of the importance of the straits for both Gulf and world trade.[3]

In this coastline, “where cash-strapped regimes often teeter on the brink of financial survival,”[4] the Gulf states have found willing partners.

In return for financial aid, Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti proved willing to support the Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm against the Houthis. Sudan deployed 4,000 to 10,000 men in Yemen — mainly to secure Aden and its vital port — as Emirati Special Forces fought Houthi rebels in the rest of the country.[5]

The deployment was rewarded with significant monetary support: in August 2015; Sudan’s central bank announced that it had received a $1 billion deposit from Saudi Arabia. Eritrea leased the port of Assab and the strategically located Hanish Islands to the UAE in return for financial compensation and oil. In December 2016, the UAE signed a renewable 25-year contract for the establishment of an air and naval base in Berbera on the coast of Somaliland(NW Somalia). In June 2015, the UAE foreign minister visited Somalia, and a few days later a shipment of armored vehicles arrived in Mogadishu.[6] 

In return, Somalia’s government has allowed its airspace, land and territorial waters to be used by the coalition. By 2016, it was revealed that Djibouti was negotiating the leasing of a military base to Saudi Arabia “to further enable the encirclement of Yemen.”[7] As an analyst argues, “The internationalization of the Yemeni war is proving a major windfall for the Horn of Africa, providing a source of ready cash and diplomatic support for governments in the region.”[8]

Another member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Qatar, while also engaging in the Horn, took a somewhat different approach. Its troubled relations with Saudi Arabia have resulted in its “minimal participation in every security framework under Saudi influence.”[16] Instead, it opted for a low-profile, rather neutral, policy based on mediation in East African conflicts, often using financial inducements and investments to facilitate the settlement of conflicts.

Qatar’s 2003 constitution had established mediation as a cornerstone of its foreign policy.[9] The emir and the prime/foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani, had been involved in the Darfur peace process after violence escalated in 2008. Qatar’s mediation efforts led to a ceasefire agreement signed in February 2010[10] between the Khartoum government and the largest opposition group, the Justice and Equality Movement.

Qatar has also mediated a truce in the Eritrea-Djibouti border dispute and deployed a small contingent of peacekeepers along the border in 2010. However, when Eritrea broke its diplomatic ties with Qatar in 2017, following the sanctions imposed on Qatar by the other Gulf states, Doha decided to withdraw its peacekeepers from the border.[11] In general, Qatari mediating efforts have not proven particularly successful as its “reliance on business ties to lubricate political relationships has [given it] only limited diplomatic influence.” Like Qatar, Oman was careful not to upset its relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran, and remained neutral throughout the conflict in Yemen, offering to mediate on several occasions.[12]

Saudis and Emirates played the role of un-declared agents of Western Empire in Somalia fueling the civil war through tribal communalist competitions and funding for inter-clan militias and warlords the entire 90’s and up 2014.

The Scramble for Somalia’s Geostrategic position in  Search for Military Bases and Ports    

Khaleeji states of Suadi ,UAE and Qatar plus Turkey have heightened their geostrategic scramble for  The Horn of African countries and specially Somalia seeking  Economic, diplomatic and Military relations such as Military Bases and commercial Ports since 2014. Thus, competing with each other and the Chinese Belt and Road Infrastructure Initiative (BRI) or/ and Maritime Silk Road (MSR).

For political, economic and ideological reasons, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Turkey are locked in a push-pull to set the rules for a Middle Eastern region long in turmoil. Two overlapping rivalries drive and define this engagement: a split within the Gulf pitting Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt against Qatar and Turkey; and competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

In strengthening their relationships in the Horn, Gulf states and Turkey hope to secure both short- and long-term interests.

In both those struggles, the main rivals see Africa as a new arena for competition and building alliances, particularly as the Horn is poised for strong economic growth over the next generation. With their significant financial resources, the Gulf countries and Turkey see a chance to adjust the future economic and political landscape of the Red Sea basin in their favour. They are all expanding their physical and political presence to forge new partnerships and ring-fence their enemies – most often one another.

In strengthening their relationships in the Horn, Gulf states and Turkey hope to secure both short- and long-term interests. In the short term for example, the Yemen war made it imperative for Saudi Arabia and the UAE to obtain a Red Sea military base. The internecine Gulf crisis that burst into the open in 2017 accelerated efforts by both sides of the rift to seek new allies. In the long term, each country is jockeying for a prime position in the Red Sea corridor’s economy and politics. Economically, they seek to enter the Horn of Africa’s underserved ports, energy and consumer markets as gateways to rapid economic expansion across the continent. All four describe China as the emerging dominant force in the Horn, and hence one with which they will need to ally, as U.S. and European influence recedes. The UAE, Qatar and Turkey, in particular, view China’s Belt and Road initiative (BRI), with projects planned across East Africa, as a chance to bolster their relationships with Beijing.

The tools in this new power scramble range from transactional to coercive. Gulf countries and Turkey can offer aid and investment in amounts that few others can, or in market conditions that many Western firms consider too risky.

Their terms for dispensing aid are often more attractive for local political leaders than those of Western donors. Instead of democratic or market reforms, Gulf states expect preferential access to new investment opportunities and ask aid recipients to take their side in either of the two rivalries in which they are involved. In exchange for military assistance, Gulf states may ask their local allies to push back or suppress domestic political forces aligned with their external enemies.

Conclusions

The Horn of Africa region has been the scene of continuing struggles of foreign actors throughout history.

The centuries-long Ottoman influence in this region has left its place to the colonial activities of the Western countries.

The region had witnessed the competition for the influence of the Soviet block with the West during the Cold War era.

In recent years, a number of new actors such as Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and China have started to seek influence in the region. While China and Russia have developed significant economic activities in the region, Turkey has been utilizing its historical ties as well as developing its humanitarian aid programme in Somalia and other countries in the region.

The region has been lying in the shores of Gulf of Aden, Bab al-Mandab, and the Red Sea, a route that is one of the most important passages for world maritime trade. Bab al-Mandab is particularly important for Asian trade giants such as China and Japan that exports significant amount of goods to Europe through this route. In addition, a great deal of the oil and natural gas exports from the Gulf countries to the European market are shipped through the Gulf of Aden, Bab al-Mandab, and the Red Sea route. Therefore, for many countries, the stability of this region is of great importance.

The region is important also since it is considered to be one of the most important entry points to the African market by the leading countries of Asia and the Middle East. This is indicative of China’s investment in Ethiopia and Russia’s efforts to develop closer economic and political relations with regional countries such as Eritrea and Djibouti. Another country that closely follows the region, in this sense, is the United Arab Emirates. Two UAE economic giants, Abu Dhabi and Dubai, export significant amount of goods to Africa. The two Emirates also serve as a hub for other countries and international companies that seek business with the continent.

This makes the Emirati ports as a crucial transfer point for big companies that export their goods to Africa. While global firms, including Nestle, use Dubai as the hub of African operations, thousands of containers leaving China and India for Africa arrive at the port of Dubai to be transferred to Africa.

This trend has derived from the increasing volume of trade, particularly from Dubai to Africa, over the years. Between 2008 and 2013, non-oil trade from Dubai to Africa increased by 700 percent.[14]

The tools in this new power scramble range from transactional to coercive. Gulf countries and Turkey can offer aid and investment in amounts that few others can, or in market conditions that many Western firms consider too risky. Their terms for dispensing aid are often more attractive for local political leaders than those of Western donors. Instead of democratic or market reforms, Gulf states expect preferential access to new investment opportunities and ask aid recipients to take their side in either of the two rivalries in which they are involved. In exchange for military assistance, Gulf states may ask their local allies to push back or suppress domestic political forces aligned with their external enemies.

This competition for influence raises risks of new conflict. The Gulf states and Turkey each say they are seeking “stability” in the Horn, but their definitions differ dramatically and put their interests directly at odds. Saudi Arabia and the UAE view civil unrest as something to control lest the region become a playground for Sunni Islam-inspired political movements or Iran. They privilege short-term stability imposed by strong security states. Although they urge allies to open their markets to investment, they would rather bandage economic grievances and postpone hard reforms that would threaten the status quo. Qatar and Turkey, meanwhile, are more inclined to see popular uprisings as a way to empower groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood that they believe will promote their interests in the long run. Yet the Brotherhood and its local spinoffs have overreached in some cases since the 2011 uprisings by imposing their ideological agendas and thus creating as many new grievances as addressing existing ones.

With their competing views, these two camps consider relationships in the Horn to be a zero-sum game, pressing states to take sides and supporting domestic opposition groups or local leaders if national capitals do not oblige. They can do this because relations between the Gulf and the Horn are deeply asymmetrical and favour the former.

While competition and rivalry may serve [Gulf’s] immediate political and commercial goals, it is just as likely to harm the long-term stability of a fragile region.[16]

The Somali Federal Government and political leadership feels that the Emirates are intervening aggressively in Somali internal affairs; stalking communal/ clan warfare; encouraging balkanization of Somalia;  funding and encouraging Al-shabab and fostering  regional insecurities since 9/11

Moreover, they are acting willingly as Agents  of US/NATO as well as of USAFRICOM’s “Global war on terror “(GWOT). The latter is directed towards towards Somalia contributing to weakening Horn Of Africa countries from an economic and military standpoint.

*

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.

Prof. Dr. Bischara Ali Egal is Executive Director, Chief Researcher of The Horn of Africa Center for Strategic and international Studies (Horncsis.org)

Notes

1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_history_of_Somalia (accessed december 29,2019)

2)  https://mepc.org/journal/gulf-states-and-horn-africa-new-hinterland (accessed 29, 2019)

3)  Ibid

4)  Ibid

5)  Ibid

6)  Ibid

7)  Ibid

8)  Ibid

9)  Ibid

10) Ibid

11) Ibid

12) Ibid

13) https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/206-intra-gulf-competition-africas-horn-lessening-impact (accessed December 30, 2019)

14) http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2018/05/lost-love-horn-africa-uae-180528092015371.html(accessed December 29, 2019)

15) Afshin Molavi, the Emerging Dubai Gateway to Africa, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies – Foreign Policy Institute, 9 October 2014, https://www.fpi.sais-jhu.edu/single-post/2014/10/09/The-Emerging-Dubai-Gateway-to-Africa;(accessed 29thDecember, 2019)

16) Ibid

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Gulf Monarchies Intervention in The Horn of Africa: Devastating Impact on Somalia
  • Tags: ,

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.

The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.

(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;

The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:

The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats

In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.

There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.

I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”

In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information

Remember, this is not just an academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.

Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.

The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.

Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.

Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.

As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.

The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.

But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.

The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.

*

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 US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani on Thursday at 11:00 PM local time at Baghdad airport. Usually, when Soleimani was arriving in Baghdad, security commander Abu Zeinab al-Lami, a deputy officer to al Muhandes, would have welcomed him. This time, al-Lami was outside Iraq and al-Muhandes replaced him. The US plan was to assassinate an Iranian General on Iraqi soil, not to kill a high-ranking Iraqi officer. By killing al-Muhandes, the US violated its treaty obligation to respect the sovereignty of Iraq and to limit its activity to training and offering intelligence to fight the “Islamic State”, ISIS. It has also violated its commitment to refrain from overflying Iraq without permission of the Iraqi authorities.

The double assassination has embarrassed both the US and the Iraqis. US embarrassment is evident from the fact that official statements by Pompeo, Esper et al. have made no mention of the killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. On the Iraqi side caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi has been forced to call a special meeting of the Iraqi Parliament to discuss withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. It will be difficult to achieve a consensus for asking US troops to depart.

But if the Iraqi Parliament does pass such a resolution, it will hit the US harshly. Anti-US resentment is not universal among Iraqi politicians; Iraqi leaders are divided on the US presence. That is one of the main reasons the US felt at ease in assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil.

The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.

WNdqZokw.jpg-medium

The Iranian leadership hopes that the Iraqi Parliament will ask US forces to leave Iraq. This decision may be reached if Moqtada al-Sadr joins his 53 MPs to those of the Al-Bina’ coalition, enough to get an affirmative vote of 165 MPs. The Kurdish MPs, most of the Sunni, and the Shia Ammar al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi will not vote in favour of US withdrawal.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the vote, US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq, including inside the military bases where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this will limit the free movement of US soldiers.

Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.

The leader of the Iranian Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei told the Iranian National Security Council in its first meeting after the assassination of Soleimani that “it is important to make a strong, severe and clear response”. This means Sayyed Khamenei this time wants the world to know that it is Iran, and not its allies that is carrying out the retaliation against US forces, a practice of direct confrontation Iran has eschewed in the past.

ENYCrpXW4AIJnwp

Well-informed sources said, “Iran’s choices are various and objectives are not lacking in the region and abroad”.

“Iran can sink a US ship with over 100 personnel onboard or kill a high-ranking US officer at the level of Soleimani. In both cases, the situation will escalate, and Iran should be ready for it”, said the source.

All indications point to the Iraqi theatre. The US worked hard to kick Iran out of Iraq. Iran is now working to kick US forces out of Iraq on the basis of US behaviour. Magic is turning against the magician. However, achieving this goal will not be without complications.

Even if the Iraqi Parliament decides to expel the US forces, they can always pull back to Iraqi Kurdistan and position their troops at a distance from Baghdad, lending their support to Kurdish independence.

What is certain is that Iran’s allies in Iraq will be offered unlimited support to fight the US forces wherever they are. Iran’s first objective is to send back US soldiers in plastic bags, particularly before the US elections.

ENXcnTkWwAEzOBg

The initiative is in the hands of Iran. Washington has sent letters through the Swiss embassy in Tehran indicating that “it is not interested in war or escalation”. Iran responded that “all negotiations are over with this administration; the assassination of Soleimani will be punished”.

But Iran is known to be pragmatic, and will likely find a way to walk this crisis home without needing to go to war. Trump is pushing Iran out of its comfort zone, obliging Iran to respond with an assassination attack similar to that which the US just perpetrated. Last year, Iran refrained from downing a US spy plane with 38 officers on board. It is unlikely to show such forbearance in the near future.

Iran considers that the US has declared war on the country, demanding a “nuclear response.” In a few days, Iran is expected to announce another withdrawal from the “nuclear deal” that was shredded and violated by President Trump in 2018.

Iran will not likely rush into retaliating. It will more likely keep the US waiting for a possible attack on many fronts, exhausting its finances and security measures to protect its forces, its commanders and VIPs. Iranian retaliation will be considered and precise but will seek to avoid dragging Iran and the Middle East into an all-out-war. Iran’s response is unlikely to trigger a US prompt reply.

*

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 the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Comes Next after the US Assassination of Qassem Soleimani? The Options

The assassination of  IRGC General Soleimani ordered by the President of the United States on January 2, 2020 is tantamount to an Act of War against Iran.

President Donald Trump accused Soleimani  of “plotting imminent and sinister attacks”: “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war…. we caught him in the act and terminated him.”

While analysts rightly point to the Soleimani assassination as an act of war, they fail to acknowledge that America’s practice of extrajudicial assassinations of foreign politicians has a long history.

What distinguishes the assassination of General Soleimani from previous extrajudicial killings, is that the president of the US, namely Donald Trump, formally announced that he gave the order.

This sets a dangerous precedent. It was an “overt” rather than “covert” targeted assassination, i.e. a covert operation by the CIA or by a US sponsored Al Qaeda affiliate.

It is important to note that is was not Trump but in fact Obama who formalized the practice of extra-judicial assassination (ordered by the president) as outlined in Joseph Kashore’s article first published in October 2012:

And if the president can kill anyone, including US citizens, without judicial review, what power does he not have? Any but the most formal distinction between democracy and presidential dictatorship is swept away. (Kashore, wsws, October 31, 2012, complete article below)

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 5, 2020

***

The media and political establishment have responded with near total silence to the Washington Post’s revelation last week that the Obama administration has transformed extra-judicial assassination into a permanent practice of the US government.

What should be immediate grounds for the impeachment of the president has been met with indifference, most notably from liberal and “left” supporters of Obama’s re-election. If the initial Post article has something of the character of a trial balloon—to see to what extent the revelation of such measures would be met with official opposition—the results are conclusive: there is no significant commitment to democratic rights in the media and political establishment.

By any objective account, the Post’s revelations are extraordinary. “Targeted killing”—a euphemism for assassination—“is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes to sustain it.” The administration has transformed “ad hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining permanent war.”

Kill lists “that were regarded as finite emergency measures after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are now fixtures of the national security apparatus.” At the same time, it is “a policy so secret that it impossible for outsiders to judge whether it complies with the laws of war or US values—or even determine the total number of people killed.”

In other words, the administration has systematized a process by which the executive branch, with no judicial oversight, kills people—including US citizens—routinely all over the world. From a “state of exception,” the administration has transformed these powers, without any public discussion, into a state of permanence.

The language used by government officials to justify such measures is chilling. The list of potential targets has been dubbed a “disposition matrix.” One former administration official noted that they faced a “disposition problem”—i.e., the government faced the challenge of disposing of targets. Wary of a potentially messy legal process, whether in civilian courts or before military tribunals, the Obama administration has elected more and more to simply kill people.

Writing in the Council of Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko cites one military official involved in the targeted killing program:

“To emphasize how easy targeted killings by special operations forces or drones has become, this official flicked his hand back over and over, stating, ‘It really is like swatting flies. We can do it forever easily and you feel nothing. But how often do you really think about killing a fly?’”

Employing a somewhat different analogy, former CIA analyst and Obama adviser Bruce Riedel, told the Post, “The problem with the drone is it’s like your lawn mower. You’ve got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back.”

Thousands have been slaughtered in this way, including many entirely innocent civilians. Among those assassinated by the American government were US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of propagating Islamic fundamentalist ideas. Obama has declared that ordering the killing of al-Awlaki was “an easy one.” Robert Gibbs, a top Obama adviser, declared in relationship to the killing of al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son, also a US citizen, who was accused of nothing, that “he should have had a more responsible father.”

It is impossible to speak of the “erosion” of American democracy any longer. The situation is far more advanced. Such language reflects a political establishment for which the most basic democratic conceptions are entirely foreign. It is language befitting a police state.

The implications go far beyond the use of drones. In seeking to justify its program of state killings, the Obama administration has in effect obliterated the legal basis for all constraints on executive power. The core concept of due process is inscribed in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”

The concept of due process traces its roots to the very origins of constitutional monarchy and the limitations on arbitrary power in Britain—the Magna Carta. In brief: a person cannot be deprived of his rights, including his right to life, without a legal and judicial process. According to the Obama administration, however, this due process requirement is satisfied by the internal deliberations of the executive—by the president and his closest advisers.

And if the president can kill anyone, including US citizens, without judicial review, what power does he not have? Any but the most formal distinction between democracy and presidential dictatorship is swept away.

Such measures will ultimately be used within the United States. Particularly since the September 11 attacks, the American government has constructed a huge spying apparatus, an apparatus currently overseen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)—the same body that is at the center of the assassination program.

In March, the Justice Department modified guidelines to allow the NCTC to collect and “continually assess” information on American citizens for up to five years, from 180 days as established under Bush. In July, the American Civil Liberties Union remarked that the changes amounted to “a reboot of the Total Information Awareness Program” which Bush was forced to formally abandon in 2003 after intense public opposition, though it was continued in different forms.

The terminal crisis of American democracy is deeply rooted in the structure of American capitalism, and in particular the vast growth of social inequality. Over the past several decades, a tiny financial aristocracy has monopolized enormous resources on the basis of speculation and increasingly criminal operations. After creating the economic and financial crisis that erupted in 2008, this same social layer is determined to pursue unpopular policies at home and abroad.

It is worth noting in this context a column by prominent political commentator George Will, appearing in the Washington Post earlier this month. Under the headline, “Seeds of Our Dysfunction,” Will complains that “America’s public-policy dysfunction exists not because democracy isn’t working but because it is.” People are not being sufficiently “reasonable,” Will complains, particularly because they do not recognize the need for massive cuts in social programs. “People flinch from confronting difficult problems until driven by necessity’s lash.”

Will is simply giving voice to conceptions more broadly felt in the ruling class. The political system, even under its current anti-democratic form, is seen as a hinderance to implementing policies that are determined to be “necessary.”

In fact, the two political parties are as united in their commitment to a wholesale attack on the working class as they are in supporting the policy of extra-judicial assassination abroad. In the aftermath of the election, whether Obama or Romney wins, the ruling class is planning immediate measures to slash social program upon which millions of people depend.

Unending war, social reaction, and the repudiation of legality—this is the program of the American ruling class. Democracy is incompatible with the continued rule of the financial aristocracy, and the continued existence of the social system, capitalism, upon which it rests.

The task of defending and extending democracy, therefore, lies with the working class—through its independent political mobilization in the fight for socialism.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Extrajudicial Assassinations are “Legal”: American Democracy and the “Disposition Matrix”

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido was handed a defeat Sunday in his bid to secure reelection as president of the country’s National Assembly (AN).

With the votes of reportedly 81 of 150 lawmakers, opposition Deputy for Yaracuy State Luis Parra was named president of the legislature. Franklin Duarte of the Social Christian COPEI party will serve as first vice president, Deputy Jose Noriega as second vice president, and Democratic Action (AD) party legislator Negal Morales as secretary. The parliamentary leadership is renewed annually on January 5, according to Venezuela’s Constitution.

The leadership slate was presented Sunday morning by Deputy Jose Brito in opposition to that headed by incumbent Juan Guaido.

Last month, Brito led a group of opposition legislators in breaking with Guaido following a new corruption scandal engulfing senior AN deputies. Brito, Parra, and other deputies were accused of accepting kickbacks from a Colombian businessman purportedly linked to Venezuela’s CLAP food program in exchange for lobbying US and Colombian authorities. The lawmakers have adamantly denied the allegations, in turn accusing Guaido of corruption. Both Brito and Parra were expelled from the First Justice party in the wake of the allegations.

Following his election to the top parliamentary post last January, Guaido proclaimed himself “interim president” of Venezuela and was immediately recognized by Washington and its allies. In the subsequent twelve months, the opposition leader repeatedly attempted to oust the Maduro government by force, while seeing his popularity plummet amid a series of scandals, including his role in the alleged embezzlement of “humanitarian aid” and links to Colombian paramilitary outfits.

On Sunday, Guaido never entered the legislative palace, claiming he was barred from doing so by security forces. A video circulated on social media even showed the opposition politician trying to scale a fence some time before the vote.

However, his version of events has been called into question by other opposition deputies, who did take part in the session and suggested Guaido could have done the same. AD Deputy William Davila, a staunch Guaido loyalist, was seen freely entering the chamber, and later told reporters that all but a handful of lawmakers were allowed to do so. Video footage showed Guaido refusing to enter except in the company of several deputies whose parliamentary immunity had been revoked for alleged criminal offenses. Other top opposition legislators, including AD’s Henry Ramos Allup and A New Era’s Stalin Gonzalez were present for the vote.

According to Second Vice President Noriega, 31 opposition deputies joined the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela and other Chavista parties in electing the new leadership. No finalized tally has been released and the identity of the dissident opposition lawmakers remains unknown at the time of writing.

Guaido and other opposition members claimed the vote for the new AN leadership was illegal and lacked quorum, labelling it “the murder of the Republic.”

The former AN chief subsequently convened a meeting with loyalist deputies at the headquarters of anti-government newspaper El Nacional. Opposition outlets reported that a parallel parliament had re-elected Guaido as president with 100 out of 167 votes. First Justice’s Juan Pablo Guanipa and Venezuela Project party Deputy Carlos Berrizbeitia were chosen as first and second vice-presidents, respectively. However, no information was provided as to who took part in the vote, though the tally did reportedly include legislators currently outside the country.

Guaido had previously attempted to introduce electronic voting so deputies who are abroad, some of them fleeing criminal charges, could take part instead of their substitutes. The move was struck down as unconstitutional by Venezuela’s Supreme Court.

International reaction was swift, with US officials rejecting the new parliamentary leadership and reiterating their backing of Guaido. Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Michael Kozak called the days events “a farce” and said Guaido remained “interim president.”

Regional right-wing governments represented in the Lima Group likewise signaled they would not recognize Venezuela’s new legislative authorities.

The European Union also published a statement denouncing “irregularities” in Sunday’s vote and stating it would continue to recognize Guaido as National Assembly president.

For his part, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro publicly expressed his recognition of new AN President Luis Parra.

“The National Assembly has voted and there is a new leadership board. It was in the air that Guaido was going to be removed by the very opposition,” he told reporters on Sunday, while also criticizing Guaido for “not showing up.”

Speaking to press following his swearing in, Parra indicated his first priority would be selecting a new supervisory board for the country’s National Electoral Council “so the people can decide with their vote” in new legislative elections scheduled for this year.

He also vowed to pursue the “path of reconciliation,” pointing out that “more than 80 percent of Venezuelans want to live in peace.”

*

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.

Lucas Koerner reporting from Caracas and Ricardo Vaz from Mérida.

Featured image is from France 24

Earlier on Sunday, about 50 members of the UK’s Special Air Service (SAS) were sent to Iraq to help with the potential evacuation of Britons following Friday’s US drone strike which killed Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s elite Quds Force.

A UK Royal Navy nuclear-powered attack submarine will be “in position to strike Iran” if the current tensions between Tehran and Washington over the killing of an Iranian general result in a full-fledged armed conflict, The Sun reports .

The newspaper cited unnamed senior UK defence sources as saying that an Astute-class hunter-killer sub armed with Tomahawk cruise nuclear missiles “was sat silently” in range of Iran.

The sources added that even though there won’t be a first strike, “every precaution is being made, depending on how Iran reacts to the death of Soleimani”.

“If things unravel quickly, the UK will always stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US. The hunter-killers are the most advanced submarines in the Royal Navy. They are a deadly asset and there is one well within range of Iran,” the sources pointed out.

The remarks come after at least 50 UK Special Air Service (SAS) troops were dispatched to Iraq to help with potential evacuation of Britons in the aftermath of a US drone strike which killed General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s elite Quds Force.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace also ordered the deployment of UK warships to the Strait of Hormuz to “take all necessary steps to protect our ships and citizens” as Iran is pledging retaliation following the killing of Soleimani.

Rouhani Warns US Made ‘Grave Mistake by Killing Soleimani

During a visit to Soleimani’s family house on Saturday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that the US made a blunder by killing the leader of Iran’s Quds force.

When asked by one of Soleimani’s daughters who will avenge her father’s blood, Rouhani said that “everyone will take revenge” and that the daughter should not worry about it.

“The Americans did not realise what a grave mistake they have made. They will suffer the consequences of such criminal measure not only today, but also throughout the years to come.’ This crime committed by the US will go down in history as one of their unforgettable crimes against the Iranian nation,” Rouhani underscored.

35 US Targets ‘Within Iran’s Reach’, IRGC Commander Claims

IRGC Commander Gholamali Abuhamzeh, for his part, claimed that 35 American targets are already “within Iran’s reach”, in a statement that was followed by US President Donald Trump warning that any possible attack against US citizens or assets would be reciprocated with a counterattack against “52 Iranian sites.”

He referred to the sites which represent the 52 American hostages taken at the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Although they were finally released, the developments led to escalation of US-Iranian tensions at the time and Washington slapping sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

In one of the latest tweets, Trump warned that “if Iran attacks an American base, or any American”, the US will send “some of its brand new beautiful [military] equipment their way…and without hesitation”.

US-Iran Tensions Escalate

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have been worsening since January 3, when Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike on Baghdad International Airport that was authorised by Trump.

Iranian authorities were quick to vow “crushing vengeance” on Washington for killing the country’s top military commander who was described by Trump as the “number one terrorist anywhere in the world.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in turn, slammed Soleimani’s killing as an “extremely dangerous, foolish escalation” and an act of “international terrorism”.

*

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 Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Nuclear Sub ‘In Position to Strike Iran’ Amid Tensions over Soleimani’s Killing
  • Tags: ,

Rescuing World War II History

January 6th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The American Free Press has published a book by John Wear titled Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath & Atrocities of World War II. The book is a compendium of WW II revisionist history. Wear pulls together work of Harry Elmer Barnes, James Bacque, Viktor Suvorov, David Hoggan, David Irving, and others to deliver a picture of WWII very different from the standard view that is familiar to all of us.

This is a courageous undertaking as Hitler and the Third Reich are respectively the most demonized leader and government in history. Adjusting the familiar story in the interest of a more truthful history opens John Wear to charges of being a Nazi sympathizer. Powerful Jewish lobbies also have vested interests in defending the official story, and those who trespass upon it are designated anti-semites and holocaust deniers.

To review a book that itself is a review of extensive historical research is beyond my capability. I have secured permission from the American Free Press to post Wear’s book chapter by chapter. You will see that there is a different story from the one taught to us. You make of it what you will.

My reason for posting Wear’s chapters is that of all of the many articles I posted in 2019 on a large variety of subjects of intense interest, the ones most read were about World War II. My article, “Germany Did Not Start World War II,” was the most widely read. My article, “The Lies About World War II,” was the second most widely read. My article, “The Truth About World War II Is Beginning To Emerge 74 Years Later,” was the fourth most widely read. That three of the four most widely read articles of the 834 postings this year on this website as of December 28 are about WW II indicates great interest in understanding WWII.

The carefully controlled explanation of World War II has shaped post-war history as much as any other force. If we are to be an aware people in charge of our destiny, we have to escape from controlled explanations even when the new explanation is unpalatable.

This is not to say that Wear is completely correct and the official story is completely incorrect. What is clearly wrong is the standard emphasis that Germany was the sole villain. Revisionist historians have made nonsense of this false claim.

It should not be surprising that the official history is problematic. It was written by the court historians of the victors for the purposes of making the court historians popular and successful by presenting the war as a great moral achievement. Unfortunately, this led to self-worship as Americans were declared to be the “The Greatest Generation” and then by the neconservatives to be the “exceptional, indispensable people.”

In the 21st century this view of ourselves has so far had two disastrous outcomes. One is the destruction in whole or part of seven Muslim countries. The other is the resurrection of the highly dangerous nuclear arms race and Cold War with Russia.

Truth is the best protection against destructive self-deception. Those who attempt to get at the truth should be respected rather than smeared and shouted down or locked away on false charges as Julian Assange and Manning are.

World War II, as far as I can tell, was the result of the ambitions of four men. Hitler wanted to put Germany, dismembered by the Versailles Treaty after WWI despite President Woodrow Wilson’s “guarantee” of no territorial losses, back together. Churchill wanted to use war and the threat of war to gain the Prime Minstership and to be a successful war leader like his ancestor the Duke of Marlborough. Roosevelt wanted England ruined by war so that Washington could take the world reserve currency role away from the British pound and control international finance. Stalin wanted to take advantage of a war torn Europe to add Eastern and Western Europe to his Communist empire.

Historians have not explained WWII in this way. In the official history, Hitler’s ambitions are misrepresented or overstated. The ambitions of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin are largely ignored. The revisionist historians are bringing these neglected ambitions into the story.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but only if it is an informed and considered opinion. Don’t be too hasty to arrive at an opinion until you have considered all aspects to the story. Keep in mind that fake news did not begin with the Democrats’ attack on Trump. It has always been a control mechanism that governments have used to coverup their crimes and to justify and build public support for their policies. War propaganda is the epitome of fake news.

Some years ago I wrote that if Hitler had not followed Napoleon into self-destruction by invading Russia, the Third Reich would still be standing. In order that the incompetents and trolls who denigrate truth-tellers on Wikipedia do not misrepresent me as a person who regrets Hitler’s demise, I will say that I am not lamenting Hitler’s demise, only acknowledging the folly of invading Russia, a folly that some of those who denigrate me wish to repeat.

A couple of readers corrected me about Hitler’s march into Russia. The German invasion of Russia was not a folly, they said. It saved Europe from Soviet conquest. The readers said that Hitler had no choice as Germany was faced with Soviet invasion. Their contention seemed implausible to me. I was influenced by standard history, such as Overy’s account that Hitler, frustrated by Britain’s refusal to negotiate peace, decided the reason was Britain’s hope that the Soviet Union would enter the war on the British side. Hitler decided to defeat the Soviet Union in order “to bring Britain to the negotiating table.” I attributed Hitler’s amazing initial success of his invasion of the Soviet Union to Stalin’s purge of the Soviet officer corps, leaving a leaderless army.

Not being a WWII history buff I was unfamiliar with Suvorov who has conclusively proven that Stalin was on the verge of a massive invasion of Germany and Western Europe with the most formidable army in history assembling on Germany’s border. As the Soviet army was being assembled in attack formation and not in defense in depth, caught offguard it was decimated. Suvorov says Hitler was aware of the impending Soviet attack and struck first. But David Irving reports that Hitler later said to his generals that if he had known of the massive size of the Soviet Army, its superior weapon systems, and its massive war production capability, he would not have attacked. I wait for historians to resolve whether Hitler’s attack was pre-emptive or a fortuitous event that saved Western Europe from Soviet conquest. Either way, the history of WWII is substantially different from the official history.

I have not read all of the revisionist historians or all of the standard histories. Nevertheless, I think I might be able to provide a brief indication of basic differences. Revisionist historians begin with Hitler’s aim of restoring the boundaries of Germany. Hitler’s aim was motivated less by territorial ambition than by the persecution, dispossession, and murder of German people under Polish and Czech rule. The pressure on Hitler, leader of a resurgent Germany, to protect Germans was intense.

Everywhere except Poland, Hitler suceeded in restoring Germany’s boundaries and in uniting with German Austria without war. Official history attributes Hitler’s success not to its inherrent rationality but to the cowardice of the British and French who appeased Hitler. British Prime Minister Chamberlain’s return from Munich with “peace in our time” has been much ridiculed by standard history. Revisionist historians see it differently. The British and French understood that the Versailles Treaty had been a mistake and to avoid war were willing to accept the reconstitution of Germany until it came to Poland. Here the British interferred in the negotiations between Hitler and the Polish military dictatorship by giving Poland a “guarantee” to come to Poland’s defense against Germany. This extraordinary act gave the Polish military dictatorship control over British war policy. This control was immediately used by breaking off negotiations with Germany. When Hitler attacked Poland, together with the Soviet Union, the British and French declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. The fact that the British caused WWII by giving Poland an unenforceable guarantee and by declaring war on Germany is the most neglected aspect of standard histories.

In standard histories the war is from start to finish Hitler’s War. Even Richard Overy’s sensible standard history, The Origins of the Second World War, begins with Hitler’s responsibility: “Without Hitler’s restless quest for empire, war might have been avoided.” In his quest for empire, Hitler “provoked” and “launched” World War II. Later in his book Overy repeats his claim: “The choice of war and grandiose imperialism was Hitler’s . . .”

Overy knows that revisionist historians have gained in credibility and acceptance. Overy is unwilling to stick with the traditional account with which he opens, but he knows he has to be careful in moving away from it. Having blamed Hitler’s restless quest for empire on his first page, Overy acknowledges on his second page British and French responsibility:

“It must not be forgotten that war in 1939 was declared by Britain and France on Germany and not the other way round. A large part of any explanation for the war that broke out in September 1939 must rest on this central point. Why did the two Western powers go to war with Germany? Immediately the question is put this way round, the role of Germany assumes a new and very different perspective.”

Overy makes an honest and reasonable attempt to explain WWII in terms of resource conflicts between the British and French empires on the one hand and the empire-desiring “have-not” countries of Germany, Italy and Japan on the other hand. Overy finds another cause of the war in the decline of the British and French empires. The impression that their power was fading made the British and French even more determined to assert their influence as predominant. The rise of nationalism is also an ingredient in Overy’s pot. His conclusion is:

“The cause of the Second World War was not just Hitler. The war was brought about by the interplay beween specific factors, of which Hitler was one, and the more general causes making for instability in the international system.

“These general causes can be traced back, as we have seen, to the strains placed on the diplomatic world in the late nineteenth century by the rise of nationalism, empire-building, and industrial power.”

In other words, Hitler was a catalyst that set off impersonal forces that were primed for war. The ambitions of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin are not in the picture. In this way Overy succeeds in adjusting standard history for some revisionist facts while protecting the victorious allies from accountability. In Overy’s index and bibliography, there are no references to Barnes, Bacque, Irving, Suvorov and other revisionists who have pushed Overy through four editions of his history to a more inclusive account of WWII. I don’t know the reason for the absence of revisionist references, but I suspect that Overy wishes to protect his incremental improvements to the history of WWII from charges of soft-on-Hitler revisionism.

Truth can only be arrived at, if at all, through free expression and fact-based open debate. Ruling entire subjects closed to investigation does not advance truth. In many countries doubting the Holocaust is illegal and lands a person in prison. According to reports I have read, the German government has apparently gone further and has made it illegal to doubt the official history of Germany’s sole guilt for WWII. With constraints like these, how can we know the truth? Moreover, such severe constraints on historical investigation make historians shy away from making any correction to historical accounts. All revisionism is suspect because it might move into forbidden territory and ruin the historian’s career.

Overy has maneuvered his way through this minefield carefully and has succeeded in moderating the one-sided history of German guilt. Perhaps in his fifth edition Overy will bring the guilt of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin into focus.

With this column serving as an introduction, John Wear’s book will appear chapter by chapter in the Guest section of my website. Not much of Wear’s book needs to be correct in order to substantially alter the history of the Second World War.

The first chapter of Wear’s book is here.

*

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. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rescuing World War II History

On January 2, President Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian military commander, Major General Qassem Suleimani. This move comes in the wake of several other recent incidents that have risked sparking potential war and increased the risk of nuclear conflict.

Jeff Carter, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility, issued the following comment

“The United States can and must pursue critical diplomatic measures to prevent war with Iran. 

Physicians for Social Responsibility urges the Trump administration to consult with Congress before engaging in any further offensive attack anywhere in and around the Persian Gulf, and to re-enter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). An armed conflict between the United States and Iran would likely be a humanitarian catastrophe. 

What’s more, the assassination of Suleimani has brought the world closer to a nuclear conflict, for two reasons:

First, this escalation of hostilities could be interpreted as a declaration of war. War is full of uncertainty, and could draw in others besides the U.S. and Iran, including nuclear-armed countries such as Israel and Russia. 

Second, in 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, an agreement that was working as planned to effectively and verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The assassination of Suleimani will likely bolster the arguments of those in Iran who advocate for Iran to work harder and faster to obtain them.”

*

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 American Herald Tribune

“As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States has the ability at any time to discuss threats against it. It has chosen not to do this, instead using almost-certainly illegal force against another U.N. member country. The consequences will be grave.”

***

An attorney who sued George W. Bush over the 2003 invasion of Iraq said Saturday that the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on orders from President Donald Trump constitutes an “act of aggression” and a violation of international law.

Dave Inder Comar, executive director of the non-profit human rights law firm Just Atonement Inc., argued in a Common Dreams op-ed Saturday that the Trump administration’s attempt to justify the drone strike on Soleimani as a legal “defensive action” does not comport with the facts.

“The United States most likely committed an act of aggression against Iran and killed Soleimani in violation of human rights law,” Comar wrote.

Comar argued the U.S. assassination of Soleimani fits two distinct International Criminal Court (ICC) definitions of “aggression.”

There are two important ICC definitions of aggression that are relevant here. First, an act of aggression can be, “an attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State”—in other words, attacking another state’s military. The killing of Soleimani would seem to fall under this definition, as he was a high-ranking military official in Iran…

The second important definition from the ICC identifies aggression as, “the use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement.” In other words, armed forces lawfully in a third party’s country suddenly acting unlawfully and in breach of the agreement may constitute aggression.

“Under two separate International Criminal Court (ICC) definitions of ‘aggression,'” Comar noted, “the U.S. likely committed an act of aggression against Iran in assassinating Soleimani.”

As Common Dreams reported earlier Saturday, the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed it killed Soleimani in an effort to thwart “imminent” attacks on Americans in Iraq. But, pressed by reporters, the administration has yet to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.

In response to the Trump administration’s claim of “anticipatory self-defense”—a justification also used by the Bush administration to invade Iraq—Comar wrote “this international legal standard is extremely difficult to meet.”

“Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations (U.N.) Charter, a breach of international peace is only permitted when authorized by the U.N. Security Council or conducted in an act of self-defense. Self-defense means fending off an armed attack,” Comar noted. “Absent evidence of such an extraordinary attack against the United States, ‘anticipatory’ self-defense, e.g., Pompeo’s stance that the killing was a ‘defensive action,’ likely cannot be legally justified.”

Comar wrote that Soleimani’s assassination “marks the most dangerous escalation between the United States and Iran in recent history, from which Iran and Iran’s neighboring countries will suffer the most.”

“Under the U.N. Charter, Iran and the United States have a legal obligation to settle their disputes peacefully,” Comar added. “As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States has the ability at any time to discuss threats against it. It has chosen not to do this, instead using almost-certainly illegal force against another U.N. member country. The consequences will be grave.”

Comar is far from the only legal expert to conclude that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani was illegal under international law.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, tweeted late Thursday that the killing of Soleimani “is most likely unlawful and violate[s] international human rights law.”

Yale law professor Oona Hathaway agreed, writing in a series of tweets Friday that “based on what we currently know, the U.S. strike on Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani is legally tenuous under both domestic and international law.”

“Congress should begin hearings and demand answers about the legal basis and the plan for handling the inevitable fallout,” Hathaway said.

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.

Trump’s Deja Vu Wartime Playbook

January 6th, 2020 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

History repeats itself, as they say. But in the age of American empire, not just twice. Or even three times. But with disturbing regularity.

The past half century shows two things about how America goes to war:

First, it creates a provocation based on a lie. Second, it then makes its target adversary an ‘offer they can only refuse’, as the final justification for US military action once the adversary rejects the unacceptable offer.

Here’s how it has worked in the past half century–a playbook to war that Trump is now clearly following in the case of Iran with his recent ordered assassination of that country’s general and government diplomat.

As for the initial provocations based on a lie:

1. In 1964 there was the infamous ‘Tonkin Gulf’ incident that provided then president Johnson the cover to escalate US involvement in Vietnam. Later Pentagon documents made public revealed the alleged attacks on US ships off Vietnam by North Vietnamese patrol boats was a total fabrication. 58,000 US and 2 million Vietnamese deaths later, the evidence came out that it was all a hoax.

2. Then there was the 1991 Gulf War. The convenient provocation that turned out to be a lie once again was the Bush administration claim that Iraq was killing babies in incubators in Kuwait. That too turned out to be false, propagated by a family member of the Kuwaiti royal elite who stood before US cameras showing the broken incubators. The US media of course did not properly identify her, instead depicting her as a concerned woman protesting the deaths of premature babies. The US media flooded the American evening news to create final public support for the subsequent US invasion. After the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq forces it was revealed it was all a staged event. Also revealed afterward was how the Bush Sr. administration, through the US ambassador, had told Saddam Hussein, that the US would not intervene if Saddam invaded Kuwait in the first place.

3. In 2001 immediately after 9-11 events in the US the excuse for invading Afghanistan was that the Taliban government in power at the time had assisted Bin Laden in attacking New York and Washington. It later came out the Taliban had nothing to do with planning or launching the attacks of 9-11. And little was said in the weeks, after 9-11 and preceding the US invasion of Afghanistan, that 18 of the 20 or so terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon were in fact Saudi Arabian Wahhabi sect terrorists aided and supported by the Saudi government. Saudis in the US at the time of 9-11 were quickly flown out of the US by a plane arranged by the George W. Bush administration. Who left on the US aided flight is still publicly unknown to this day. The US ‘unacceptable offer’ to the Taliban was the demand it turn over Bin Laden and all his supporters in Afghanistan–i.e. something impossible without the Taliban provoking its own internal civil war.

4, Then we have the 2003 decision by Bush Jr. invading Iraq. Now the cover lie was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, having amassed ‘yellow cake’ uranium material with which to make a nuclear weapon. That too proved totally false after the fact. After the US invasion, nothing remotely representing weapons of mass destruction could be found anywhere despite intense US military efforts to discover such. But in the run-up to war in 2002-03 the lie provided the cover to start the war. And the US demand that Saddam allow US military personnel to roam free anywhere in Iraq–i.e. accept the invasion without resistance–constituted the ‘unacceptable offer’ that the US bet Saddam would reject.

All these lies as bases for provocation represent the standard approach by the US when it wants to go to war. The provocations are then followed by extending an unacceptable ‘offer they cannot accept’ to the targeted adversary. The unacceptable offer is the signal the US has already decided to go to war and is setting up a pretext to justify military action. By refusing the unacceptable offer, the adversary thus gives the US no alternative but to commence the military action.

In the case of the 2nd Gulf War the unacceptable offer was the US demand that US forces be allowed to enter Iraq, roam free unannounced wherever they wanted, and inspect all military bases and other government institutions without interference. In the first Gulf War, it was the similar demand that Saddam pull out all his forces from Kuwait,redeploy far from its borders, and permit US coalition inspectors into Iraq. In Vietnam, it was the Vietcong should disband and both it and North Vietnam should accept a permanent two-state solution, forever dividing North and South Vietnam.

In all cases the US way to war is to make an offer it knows will be refused so that it appears further negotiation or diplomatic efforts are fruitless. Thus only military action is left.

Trump’s Deja Vu Provocation

Trump’s recently ordered assassination of Iran’s senior military leader (who was also a senior Iranian diplomat, Soleimani, is being justified by the Trump administration based on claims that Soleimani and Iran were planning widespread terrorist actions that would have killed scores, if not hundreds, of Americans, if he weren’t assassinated. But no evidence of such a threat is being produced by Trump or his government to date. Evidence of the threat was noot even given to members of Congress, after the fact over this past weekend, as Trump post-hoc gave Congress an initial briefing on the action already taken. According to the War Powers Act, and well established precedent, Trump was required to consult Congress before the action, not after. And it has been leaked, though not picked up much by the US press, that that post-hoc briefing was considered seriously insufficient by many members of Congress in attendance.

Evidence lately is leaking out that Trump and his neocon foreign policy radical advisors have been planning the assassination at least since late December, and probably earlier. The Trump administration has been escalating its provocations since at least then. A mercenary US contractor was killed and the US compound in Baghdad was ‘attacked’ by protestors. That in itself was insufficient to launch the assassination provocation. For that, we now have the story of imminent threat to hundreds of Americans that Soleimani and Iran were planning.

In the case of Vietnam there at least was something tangible, in the false photos of the Tonkin Gulf incident. In the first Gulf War they flooded the US media with pictures of broken baby incubators. In 2003 we had then ambassador Colin Powell showing the United Nations his fake placards of installations in Baghdad where ‘yellow cake’ might be stored. Now with Trump all we get is to believe his claim widespread terrorist operations against the US were being planned. Claims from an administration already notorious for its lying, fake news, and fantasy tweets.

What’s Trump’s ‘Unacceptable Offer’?

Events in the days and weeks ahead (surely not months) will reveal what will be Trump’s ‘unacceptable offer’.

Following the assassination, Trump is now clearly waiting on Iran to take some kind of military action against US forces first. The US will use that attack by Iran as an excuse to reciprocate, which is what it apparently has decided to do in the first place back in late December. Since December Trump has been clearly engaged in escalating acts of provocation. The US is betting on Iran falling into the trap–a trap it can hardly avoid given its domestic politics and international commitments.

But in the current domestic US political climate, Trump cannot take military action first. He is prevented by the War Powers Act from doing so. He is also engaged in a domestic political fight over impeachment. A violation of the War Powers Act could potentially add another article of impeachment for violating the War Powers Act law. So he needs to provoke further military action by Iran. That will enable him to actually use the War Powers Act to reciprocate militarily against Iran, and remain still within the War Powers Act. For the Act permits the president to ‘protect US forces’ immediately and later come back to Congress for justification of the action. Trump will launch an attack on Iran should the latter attack US forces, and he’ll then argue his response was protected by the War Powers Act and not a violation of it.

Trump’s latest tweets identifying Iranian targets, including cultural targets, are also designed to threaten and infuriate Iran and get them to attack US forces first. Iran has already indicated it considers the assassination an ‘act of war’. Having said such, for it to do nothing would be politically unacceptable. Iran has publicly declared, however, its targets would be only US military. The likeliest military targets are in Iraq. Once Iran makes the next move, and where, and how, will define what Trump America’s ‘unacceptable offer’ as a prelude to war might well be.

The provocation (assassination of Soleimani) has been made. The US ‘unacceptable offer’ may not be long in coming.

Postscript On the Origins of War in the Period of Late American Empire

The past half century shows that America’s wars are more often than not precipitated by its presidents and their bureaucrat-intellectual advisors. The reasons are some combination of ideology, over-estimation of US power (and under-estimation of adversaries), and decisions by politicians to divert attention from domestic troubles, economic or political, to buttress their political standing or re-elections.

In the case of LBJ in the 1960s, it was clearly ideological in part. LBJ was obsessed with not losing Vietnam on his watch, as Truman ‘lost China’ on his, as he often said. Stop communism and the ‘domino theory’ was widely held by politicians and bureaucrats alike. LBJ was also surrounded by bureaucrat-intellectuals who believed US military power was omnipotent. How could jungle guerrillas in pajamas and sandals dare to resist US military might! Like the Japanese attack on the US in 1941, the thinking was to overwhelm them (guerrillas or USA) with a massive initial force and attack and they’d sue for peace and negotiate. The war would be short. But the USA in 1965 made the same miscalculation as did the militarists in Japan in 1941.

In 1991 the domestic political scene clearly played a role. The US had just experienced a deep financial crisis and a recession in 1990-91. The first Gulf War was a convenient distraction, and a way for then president George Bush Sr. to hopefully boost his re-election bid in 1992–by boosting the economy with war spending and by wearing the mantle of war victor.

In 2003 George W. Bush faced a similar economic and re-election dilemma. The recovery from the 2001 recession was weak. Military spending in Afghanistan was limited. There was no clear military victory. While US forces took over Kabul, the Taliban simply slipped away into the mountains to fight another day. The US economy began to weaken noticeably in 2002 once again. Bush and his neocon advisors had identified and targeted what they called an ‘Axis of Evil’ of countries that were not willing to abide by its rules of American global empire. The countries were: Libya, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea. Except for the latter, they were all easy military targets. Moreover, little evidence of ‘defeat’ of terrorists post 9-11 called for a necessary military action before the 2004 elections. Invading Iraq in 2003 would also boost the US economy in 2004. Bush Jr. would enter the 2004 race with a military-spending boosted economy and with military victory under his belt. Once again, distraction from domestic problems and/or boosting re-election were the main determinants–along with neocon-ultra conservative ideological rationalization for military action.

Something of a similar scenario exists today with Trump. Despite Trump hyperbole on the economy, deep weaknesses exist and threaten to emerge more full blown in an election year. Trump’s trade wars have produced little economic gain after two years. Domestic politics have left Trump with a pending impeachment hanging over his head, and unknown developments about his personal finances, deals made with foreign powers, and failures to deliver in foreign policy nearly everywhere.

Precipitating a war in his final year in office–should impeachment move forward and the economy move backward–is a card Trump the reckless, high risk taker, convinced of his own personal ego and superiority is very likely to play. He is clearly setting the stage for his big bet: will war with Iran boost his re-election plans and re-energize a weakening economy? Or will it lead to his political demise–as in the case of Johnson or Bush Sr.?

Which road will Trump take? (Which has he already decided to take?). Given the nature of his pre-war provocation in the recent assassination–and Iran’s apparent decision to take Trump’s bait–the odds are great that Trump is ‘rolling the dice’ and willing to engage in a risky military adventure. The ‘unacceptable offer’ when it comes will not be difficult to identify. It appears just a matter of time, and more likely sooner rather than later.

Trump’s imminent military adventure holds little in strategic gain for the USA, and great possible loss globally politically as well. But Trump has always been most concerned with his own personal interests, in this case his political re-election. He will, as he already has, sacrifice US long term interests. Trump is about Trump. And nothing else. Americans will not be made safer but less so. So too the world. And before it’s all over, political instability as we enter the current 2020s decade may well precipitate economic instability on a scale not yet seen.

*

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 author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published, January 2020 book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, available on his blog at discount at jackrasmus.com. He hosts the Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio Network and tweets at @drjackrasmus.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

On January 5, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi reportedly provided additional details into the US assassination of the commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force, Qassem Soleimani. 

According to the available data, the Iranian commander arrived in Baghdad under an official request from Iraq. He was set to receive de-escalation proposals that Saudi Arabia sent to Iran via Iraq. US President Donald Trump allegedly supported this idea during a phone call with the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Therefore, the US supposedly used this initiative to set a trap for the Iranian military commander and assasinate him.

HINT: President Donald Trump spoke over phone with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi on December 31 after demonstrators stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

If these developments are confirmed, this will be another indication of the destructive behaviour of the modern United States. Washington has been violating international laws and breaking deals that it signs on a regular basis. Now, any negotiations that involve or linked with the United States also may pose a threat to representatives of the parties involved.

*

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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from iranwire.com

The killing of Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander, by the United States marks a terrible escalation between the United States and Iran, which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described as a “defensive action”:

.

.

.

But Pompeo is wrong on this point. The United States most likely committed an act of aggression against Iran and killed Soleimani in violation of human rights law. Here is why:

Killing a High-Ranking Government Official Is Likely an Act of Aggression

Aggression was originally defined at the Nuremberg Tribunal and was then later codified in part by General Assembly Resolution 3314 as well as by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC uses a definition of aggression derived from international customary law, which generally prohibits the invasion or attack with a state’s armed forces against the territory of another state—including through bombing a state, blockading its ports and coasts, or sending irregular/partisan/paramilitary forces to accomplish the same.

There are two important ICC definitions of aggression that are relevant here. First, an act of aggression can be, “an attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State”—in other words, attacking another state’s military. The killing of Soleimani would seem to fall under this definition, as he was a high-ranking military official in Iran. In an era of targeted killings and death by drone, where much of the world has become a battlefield, the grand-scale paratrooping of thousands of forces into enemy territory or tank-to-tank warfare has been replaced by single-shot missions against apex leadership of rival political entities. This definition of aggression is broad enough to cover a lone MQ-9 Reaper drone executing a general of another state’s armed forces.

The second important definition from the ICC identifies aggression as, “the use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement.” In other words, armed forces lawfully in a third party’s country suddenly acting unlawfully and in breach of the agreement may constitute aggression. This is relevant, as U.S. forces are only lawfully in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government—and the Iraqi care-taker Prime Minister has already described the attack as a “flagrant violation of the conditions authorising the presence of US troops” on Iraqi soil.

Under two distinct ICC descriptions, then, the U.S. likely committed an act of aggression against Iran in assassinating Soleimani.

The Nuremberg Tribunal called aggression the “supreme” international crime under international law.

“Anticipatory” Self-Defence Is a Very Tough Standard to Meet

While U.S. officials have claimed the attack on Soleimani was lawful as an act of anticipatory self-defence, this international legal standard is extremely difficult to meet. Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter, a breach of international peace is only permitted when authorised by the UN Security Council or conducted in an act of self-defence. Self-defence means fending off an armed attack.

With respect to so-called “anticipatory” self-defence, a state that strikes first must meet the heightened Caroline test, which requires that the necessity of self-defence “is instant, overwhelming, and leav[es] no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Absent evidence of such an extraordinary attack against the United States, “anticipatory” self-defence, e.g., Pompeo’s stance that the killing was a “defensive action,” likely cannot be legally justified.

Killing Soleimani May Constitute a Human Rights Violation

To justify the use of lethal force under human rights law requires a similar analysis, showing that the killing was strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life. UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions, Agnes Callamard, made this very point:

The Killing of Soleimani in Context

Tensions between the United States and Iran go back to 1953, when the United States overthrew the democratically-elected Mossadegh government. More recently, the United States has withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly-referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, and has instead placed crippling sanctions against Iran that have shrunk their economy by 15% in just two years.

The assassination of Soleimani marks the most dangerous escalation between the United States and Iran in recent history, from which Iran and Iran’s neighbouring countries will suffer the most.

Under the UN Charter, Iran and the United States have a legal obligation to settle their disputes peacefully. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the United States has the ability at any time to discuss threats against it. It has chosen not to do this, instead using almost-certainly illegal force against another UN member country. The consequences will be grave.

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.

Inder Comar, (JD NYU Law, MA Stanford University, BA Stanford University) is the Managing Partner of Comar Mollé LLP, a corporate technology law firm, and the Executive Director of Just Atonement Inc., a non-profit human rights law firm. He practices in the United States and internationally. He is a Global Research Correspondent, Law and Justice, San Francisco, California.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

A State of War Exists Between the US and Humanity

January 6th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

There’s no ambiguity about what’s going on globally.

Washington’s geopolitical agenda is all about seeking dominance over other countries, their resources and populations worldwide — by whatever it takes to achieve its aims, notably by brute force and other hostile actions.

The Trump regime’s assassination of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (connected to the country’s military) were the latest examples of its state’s sponsored terrorism on the world stage.

Since Harry Truman’s aggression on North Korea in the early 1950s, a state of war has existed between the US and humanity.

It’s been ongoing endlessly since that time, smashing one nation after another by naked aggression, color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, economic terrorism, targeted assassinations, and other hostile actions.

No nation in world history caused more harm to more people over a longer duration than the US — a hegemonic menace, masquerading as democratic, a notion it tolerates nowhere, especially not at home.

Today is the most perilous time in world history, the risk of another global conflict real — potentially with nuclear weapons able to kill us all if used in enough numbers.

Most Americans are mindless of the greatest threat in their lifetimes because establishment media treat them like mushrooms — keeping them well-watered and in the dark.

Trump is a geopolitical know-nothing, a billionaire businessman/reality TV president — aware only about what his extremist handlers tell him, along with Fox News propaganda, his favorite TV station.

His regime’s assassination of Iranian and Iraqi military commanders is symptomatic of a nation off-the-rails, threatening everyone everywhere by its hegemonic rage.

He’s not the issue. If not him, someone else in charge would pursue the same agenda — dirty business as usual no matter who in the US serves in high office — in the White House, Congress, the bureaucracy and judicial branch.

That’s America’s disturbing state — today more threatening to humanity than earlier, at home and abroad.

Its criminal class is bipartisan, both warrior wings of its one-party state as menacing to humanity as the other.

In the wake of Trump regime assassinations, acts of war on Iran and Iraq, events are fast-moving.

On Sunday during an emergency session, Iraqi parliamentarians voted to expel US occupying and coalition forces, demanding it supported by Prime Minister Mahdi.

Two major parliamentary factions strongly backed the measure — the Fatah Alliance and prominent cleric Muqtada al-Sadr-led Sairoon.

Press TV reported that MPs “cit(ed) Articles 59 and 109 of the (Iraqi) Constitution” — expulsion “in line with their national and regulatory responsibilities as representatives to safeguard the security and sovereignty of Iraq.”

US forces were allowed back in the country to combat the scourge of ISIS — created and supported by Washington.

In late 2017, military operations against their jihadists were concluded. Iraqi parliamentarians and ruling authorities want US occupation of the country ended.

According to adopted legislation, Baghdad is required to file a formal complaint with the UN Security Council against US aggression on its territory.

Fatah Alliance head/Badr Organization secretary general Hadi al-Ameri called for expelling US forces from the country, saying the following:

“We will defeat Americans and drive them out, as we did earlier in the face of Daesh (ISIS).”

“We will expel Americans right before Iraqis’ eyes as they will be frustrated and humiliated.”

“We will press ahead with this struggle. We don’t have any option but to fully restore Iraq’s sovereignty.”

Time and again, Trump tweets and otherwise comments before he thinks.

On Sunday following Iraqi MPs voting for the expulsion of US forces, he said the following:

“We’re not leaving (Iraq) unless they pay us back for” what the US spent in the country — to smash it and massacre its people for decades, he failed to explain, adding:

“If they do ask us to leave…(w)e will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever.”

Iraq is US-occupied territory, threatening its sovereignty, population, and the region.

As long as US forces remain anywhere in the Middle East, and Washington continues supplying billions of dollars worth of heavy weapons to its belligerent nations, regional peace, stability and security will remain unattainable.

Ahead of Sunday’s vote by Iraqi parliamentarians, the Trump regime tried and failed to stop it.

Ongoing turmoil in the country with US dirty hands behind it makes it uncertain what’s coming next.

Pentagon forces will likely be forced out of Iraq, when and under what circumstances uncertain. It could be a long time coming or sooner. It’s too early to know either way.

Assassinating widely respected Iranian and Iraqi military commanders was a colossal Trump regime blunder.

It elevated them to martyr status, making them more prominent in death than alive, arousing the people of both countries, uniting them against the US hegemonic menace.

Only Cassandra was good at predicting future events. What’s ahead remains unknown for mere mortals like myself.

If past is prologue, most likely things will be more dismal than already, at home and abroad.

Endless US wars of aggression against nonbelligerent countries may continue in our lifetimes, new ones launched, hordes of newly recruited US terrorist foot soldier replacing eliminated ones.

Forever wars are the new normal, ones launched by the US post-9/11 continuing with no near-term prospect for resolution.

Along with Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Donbass (Ukraine), Occupied Palestine, and Iraq, Iran is in the eye of the storm.

Will the Trump regime attack Islamic Republic territory in the new year?

Will it risk the mother of all post-9/11 wars by going this far, boiling over the region more greatly than already, risking blockage of regional oil supplies to world markets — severe global recession conditions to follow if this happens and it’s protracted.

If Trump regime hardliners unleash greater Middle East fire and fury than already by attacking Iranian territory, global war could follow.

I believe US hot war with Iran is unlikely because of its potentially catastrophic consequences if launched.

At the same time, with hardliners in charge of US geopolitical policymaking in both right wings of its war party, the unthinkable is ominously possible.

*

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 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Whose Blood, Whose Hands?

January 6th, 2020 by S. Brian Willson

Qasem Soleimani had the blood of Americans on his hands”, so said US Representative Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Relations. A similar accusation was made by many other politicians and commentators. But these blood-drenched politicians and commentators only know what the extremely biased anti-Russian and anti-Iranian US intelligence reports say which are predictably unreliable. They have no idea of Soleimani’s history who many observers credit with being the chief strategist in defeating ISIS. And the most important question of all is ignored – why are unwanted US military present in other countries? They are there illegally, a blatantly imperial menace. Why is Congress funding this policy that in fact threatens the people of the US, rather than protecting them?

Of course, these mostly White men hypocritically ignore gruesome history, including militarily supporting Iraq’s Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons in his 8-year war against Iran that took one million of their lives. Or, the totally concocted, grotesquely illegal and criminal US war against Iraq, 1990-1991, and 2003-present, killing over a million lives. Since the blood is not streaming out of their bodies, they callously ignore the blood of Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, Yemenis, Libyans, Somalis, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Bolivians, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and citizens of many other countries, that is in fact on theirhands, and on the hands of countless US Generals, Colonels, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, and their Navy and Marine counterparts, and common soldiers and sailors under the direction of these officers, the President Commander–in-Chief, and all their funders in the bipartisan US Congress comprised of 535 (s)elected representatives, such as Mr. Engel, and the hands of millions of taxpayers.

How many US citizens know of the crimes our country systematically has committed, and continues to commit, throughout the world, crimes that are constant, remorseless, and fully documented? British playwright and Nobel Prize recipient Harold Pinter sadly commented: “Nobody talks about them. . . . It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest”.[1] Without historical context, there is little capacity to critique the veracity of contemporary policies and rhetoric. So, it is believed, the US just couldn’t be involved in patterns of criminal interventions; our origins just couldn’t be built on dispossession and genocide. “That is not the American way.” But the fact is that it isthe American way. We simply don’t know about it and don’t want to know about it. Impunity has erased memory.

We would all be enlightened to re-read Barbara Tuchman’s classic, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam,where she clearly articulates the horrific patterns of war folly that have played out around the globe for millennia.[2] Only now it would be from Troy to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Impunity

Cultural historians, philosophers, psychologists, essayists, and scientists caution us to seriously understand the past and its patterns. Sigmund Freud declared that in psychic life, nothing of what has been formed in the past ever disappears. Everything that has occurred is preserved in one way or another and, in fact, reappears under either favorable or unfavorable circumstances.

When impunity dominates, memory disappears and justice as a permanent value in human history ceases to exist. Sickness in the soul – of the individual, as well as of a nation – results where nothing is real. Everything becomes pretend, lies told over and over in many different forms throughout time.[3]

Impunity in fact produces severe disturbances within the individual and collective psyche, manifesting in behavioral psychopathologies of huge magnitude, such as wars. Think of a spoiled child who has never been taught boundaries or been held to account for harmful behavior. Collective as well as individual narcissism can lead to extreme antisocial conduct. Security is experienced through individuality, attracted to authoritarianism, but not social justice. An acquisitive habit settles into the inner life, preempting an authentic inquisitive and socially empathic mind. A social compact is destroyed in deference to privatization, creating anomie. Life is commodified. Disparity between the Haves and Have-Nots becomes extreme; today this is called neoliberal economics. History is negated, concealing past traumas such as unspeakable genocides and deceitfully based wars.[4]

The Shame of Forceful Dispossession Hidden by Exceptionalism

The United States of America was founded on two horrific genocides – the forceful dispossession of Indigenous Americans, stealing their land, murdering millions with impunity, and the forceful dispossession of Africans, stealing their labor, murdering millions with impunity. Their blood is still on our hands.

So, we created a kind of “religious” mythology about our country to conceal our painful shame. It is called exceptionalism, enabled by impunity. The psychological and cultural conditioning growing up in US America, especially for a Eurocentric White male like myself, is emotionally and intellectually comfortable. But the noble history we have been taught about ourselves is fantastic fakery which continues to serve as a comfortable escape from experiencing and feeling the horrible truth of the collective shame of our unspeakable criminal genocidal origins. Capitalism itself would not have existed without centuries of egregious colonial plunder of millions of Indigenous Americans, or millions of enslaved Africans. Karma exists in some fashion, or as the saying goes, what goes around comes around.

Exceptional Stupidity

So, not only does the lie of being superior over others enable us to avoid extremely unpleasant thoughts and feelings, but it also discourages asking enlightening, delving questions, about who we reallyare as a people. Why mess with the apparent successful myth of being exceptional?

US policy operates in paranoia with delusions of grandeur. By the early 1980s, with more than a decade of reflection since being in Viet Nam, I sensed that this culture of my birth and upbringing possesses an illness of psychotic denial. This feeling of superiority – of being uniquely exceptional – is very dangerous because it leads to a kind of stupor, or dangerous stupidity, uninterested in engaging in truly honest dialogue or discussion. It acts like a mindless, conceited fool. And against stupidity we are defenseless since reason and diplomacy are confidently ignored. It is much more dangerous than malice. Exceptionalism is deeply conditioned in us.

But thoughtlessness – a suspension of critical thinking – today leads to a Planet-threatening nuclear, arrogant war-making society. Not unintelligent, but stupid. And the power brokers, and many in the population, have a vested interest in remaining stupid to protect the comfortable original lie, that requires countless subsequent lies, in turn, to preserve that original lie. We have told ourselves a fairy tale, and it feels good, serving as a successful technique of denial.

Our dangerousness was again evidenced by our latest act of war – targeted drone assassinations at the Baghdad International Airport of Iran’s popular General Qasem Soleimani, and Iraqi military leader Abu Mehdi Muhandis. And until we the people are able to literally take the money out of the Military-Congressional-Intelligence-Banking-Wall Street-Drug Complex, and the ability of that wealthy complex to absolutely control with bribery our political process, we are doomed to war, climate catastrophe, and extinction, or near so.

Immediately after the assassination of Soleimani, the stock of major US weapon’s manufacturers surged as investors look forward to additional obscene profits from more war. Trump had it right in his campaign promise to get the US out of the Middle East, but he has forsaken that goal in deference to the Neocons and elements of the Deep State, in cahoots with Congress. Ironically, all this military bully posturing, murdering, lying, and disrespect for diplomacy, severely endangers everybody. The Department of Defense (DOD) really should be described as the Department of Offensive War (DOOW).

What is required is a massive, widespread popular rebellion rooted in a global consciousness that tenaciously empowers us to replace our deceitful oligarchy. Why do we continue to allow this insane national misbehavior? Will we escape our stupor, and instead feel, taste, and experience the countless liters of blood on our hands? If so, we might be awakened to the most important of all social emotions – empathy – that enables all humanity to live as one interconnected species, even with different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. It really is our choice, and the stakes could not be higher – survival with dignity.

*

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.

Brian Willson is a Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer. He has visited a number of countries examining the effects of US policy. He wrote a psychohistorical memoir, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson(PM Press, 2011), and in 2018 wrote Don’t Thank Me for my Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies(Clarity Press). He is featured in a 2016 documentary, Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson, and others in the Peace Movement, (Bo Boudart Productions). His web essays: brianwillson.com. He can be reached at [email protected]He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Notes

[1] Harold Pinter, Various Voices: Prose, Poetry, Politics, 1948-1998(New York: Grove Press, 1998, 237.

[2] New York: Knopf, 1984.

[3] S. Brian Willson, “The Pretend Society,” http://www.brianwillson.com/the-pretend-society/.

[4] B. Paz Rojas, “Impunity and the Inner History of Life,” Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order, 26(4), 1999.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Whose Blood, Whose Hands?

Every day of 2019 we have provided you with articles that report, break down and analyze the pressing issues of our times by authors from all over the globe. We have kept access to the site free of charge so as to get the articles to as many people as possible. Global Research also remains fully independent by not accepting money from public or private foundations. As the internet becomes a less friendly space for independent media, we have seen our revenue from advertising and book sales drop dramatically over the past year.

We really will need a big boost in donations and membership subscriptions from our readership if we are to make it through 2020 and beyond. We would not be here without your support. We wish you and your loved ones Peace for the New Year.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

*     *     *

Whose Blood, Whose Hands?

By S. Brian Willson, January 06, 2020

How many US citizens know of the crimes our country systematically has committed, and continues to commit, throughout the world, crimes that are constant, remorseless, and fully documented? British playwright and Nobel Prize recipient Harold Pinter sadly commented: “Nobody talks about them. . . . It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening.

“To Initiate a War of Aggression Is Not Only an International Crime: It Is the Supreme International Crime”

By David W. Mathisen, January 06, 2020

Why should we have reason to be suspicious about the allegations we are hearing about General Soleimani preparing extensive attacks on Americans?

We have every reason to be suspicious about those allegations and to suspect that things are not necessarily as we are being told, because the entire pretext for invading Iraq in the first place, seventeen years ago in early 2003, was based on complete lies and fabrications.

Iran

Disruptive Assassinations: Killing Qassem Soleimani. Trump Promises “Bombing 52 Iranian Sites”

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 06, 2020

On the surface, it made not one iota of sense.  The murder of a foreign military leader on his way from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of irresistible richness.  “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”  The words from the Pentagon seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared resist them.  “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.  The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

Targeted Assassination, Will Iran Seek “Strategic Revenge”?

By Stephen Lendman, January 06, 2020

The US and Western partners are contemptuous of peace, stability, equity, justice, and the rule of law — waging war on humanity by hot and other means.

Where is the outrage in the West over the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis?

Under international law, killing them was Trump regime aggression.

The Coming Attack on Iran?

By Prince Kapone, January 05, 2020

According to Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), all signatory member nations possess the “inalienable right” to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”[1] As a signatory nation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to this most basic right, just like any other nation. However, the U.S. and its allies are seeking to infringe upon and limit Iran’s right to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes, asserting that the Iranian government is using its civilian nuclear program as a smokescreen for an alleged covert nuclear weapons program.[2] These assertions are backed by no credible evidence, just the assurances of the U.S. and Israeli governments respectively. It is further insinuated that once Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will certainly use them to “wipe Israel off the ma

Implications of the Trump Regime’s Assassination of Iran’s General Soleimani

By Prof. Tim Anderson, January 05, 2020

The US assassinations of Iran’s General Soleimani and Iraqi General Muhandis will certainly undermine security in the Middle East. In the short term, it is certain to lead to an escalation of violence. Iran’s National Security Council met and announced that a harsh vengeance “in due time and right place” awaits “the criminals behind the assassination”. Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei has called for “severe revenge”. Iran has to retaliate to this cowardly attack, and all the key Iranian leaders have said that they will do so, at the right time. There are dozens of US targets in the region.

Foul Murder of Another Nation’s Hero: An American Disgrace

By Diana Johnstone, January 05, 2020

The criminal assassination of General Qassem Soleimani was not only an act of war, it was an act of low treachery and crass stupidity.  Among the self-justifying lies, leaders of the perpetual war regime in Washington claim that locating the targeted military leader was a brilliant accomplishment of U.S. intelligence.

The Murder of General Suleimani. Trump Expected Public Applause. It Didn’t Happen…

By Peter Koenig, January 05, 2020

General Suleimani was killed by a US drone. He was not only the most popular and prominent military officer in Iran, but he was also influential and respected throughout the Middle East. He was chief in training Iraqi forces who eventually defeated ISIS in Iraq within less than a year, when the US and NATO estimated it would take at least 3 years. General Suleimani, along with Russia was also instrumental in training the Syrian armed forces with the objective of defeating ISIS / IS / DEASH in Syria, and they succeeded. This US act of impunity, the General Suleimani killing, was unmistakenly targeted with precision and as such a clear declaration of war on Iran.

Soleimani’s Assassination: An Act of Psychological Warfare

By Douglas Valentine and Mostafa Afzalzadeh, January 05, 2020

The process of converting “intelligence” gained on foreign adversaries into policy relies on an impenetrable barrier of secrecy. As Guy Debord said, secrecy dominates this world, foremost as the secret of dominance. This highly restricted process of access to information allows politicians, intel bureaucrats and their corporate partners in the arms industry 1) to turn Lies into Truth and 2) gobble up the lion’s share of the US budget, at the expense of the general welfare of the citizens. This means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the poor never have any idea what’s really happening.

The Foremost State Sponsor of Terror, the United States of America: Assassination of Soleimani – What Next?

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, January 05, 2020

Heartbroken at the defeat of ISIS, the United States bombed the man who had led that defeat.    Trump bombed to kill Soleimani and to save ISIS, to expand its hegemony.  Trump failed. He obliterated any chance this world had for peace and he managed to plant the seed of revenge in every heart that beats for justice.  Iran does not mourn alone.  Make no mistake – it was not one man that was killed.  It was the fragile hope of peace, of our future and that of our world that was destroyed.   Trump was Iran’s 911.  He forced a fate akin to 911 but vastly different.

The Soleimani Assassination: The Long-Awaited Beginning of the End of America’s Imperial Ambitions

By Philip Giraldi, January 03, 2020

The United States is now at war with Iran in a conflict that could easily have been avoided and it will not end well. There will be no declaration of war coming from either side, but the assassination of Iranian Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani and the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah Abu Mehdi Muhandis by virtue of a Reaper drone strike in Baghdad will shift the long-simmering conflict between the two nations into high gear. Iran cannot let the killing of a senior military officer go unanswered even though it cannot directly confront the United States militarily. But there will be reprisals and Tehran’s suspected use of proxies to stage limited strikes will now be replaced by more damaging actions that can be directly attributed to the Iranian government. As Iran has significant resources locally, one can expect that the entire Persian Gulf region will be destabilized.

*

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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Assassination of Qassem Soleimani, An Act of War

As a citizen of the United States, a graduate of West Point, Ranger School and other Army schools, and former officer in the Regular Army, sworn to support and defend the Constitution, I am disgusted at the despicable, immoral and illegal murder of General Soleimani (of Iran), General Al-Ibrahim aka Mahdi Al-Muhandis (of Iraq), and their drivers and accompanying soldiers, by drone strikes on their cars as they were driving from the Baghdad Airport while on their way to attend the funerals of members of their militias killed by aircraft strikes days earlier.

The US Constitution contains provisions for the declaration of war, because the Constitution explicitly states that one of its purposes is “to provide for the common defense” of the nation.

It assigns the grave authority of declaring war to the Congress, in Article 1 of the Constitution, and it is understood that the founders gave this authority to Congress because the members of Congress most fully represent the will of the people, and the rules and procedures of the two houses of Congress require deliberation and debate before enacting legislation and certainly before declaring war, enabling different arguments to be aired and considered.

The representatives of the people of the US have not declared war on either Iran or Iraq, and   thus no state of war exists between the US and those countries, making the cold-blooded assassination of officers (or anyone else) from those countries illegal and completely against the “laws of nations” which is described in the Constitution (see sentences underlined in red from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, shown above).

Indeed, by all accounts, this dastardly assassination was perpetrated before Congress was even told about it. By the time the Congress was told, the assassination of the two generals and their accompanying soldiers had already taken place.

The citizens of the United States are now being assured that abundant intelligence exists showing that these generals were planning attacks on American targets in Iraq and beyond, just as we have been told that the Iraqi militia positions hit by American airstrikes were somehow determined to have been linked to rocket attacks on the “K1” base in Kirkuk where one contractor was killed — thus far without any actual evidence having been presented to the world to back up these allegations (very limited details have been released).

Why should we have reason to doubt what we are being told about the perpetrators of the attacks on K1?

Why should we have reason to be suspicious about the allegations we are hearing about General Soleimani preparing extensive attacks on Americans?

We have every reason to be suspicious about those allegations and to suspect that things are not necessarily as we are being told, because the entire pretext for invading Iraq in the first place, seventeen years ago in early 2003, was based on complete lies and fabrications.

The most dastardly of these lies, used to support the war of aggression against Iraq, was the lie that Iraq had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001.

There is now so much evidence which shows that the official story of what took place on that awful day is a complete pack of lies that nobody who examines that evidence can possibly fail to conclude that we have been lied to about September 11th for going on nineteen years — and those lies have been used to “justify” (falsely justify, of course, which is no justification at all) wars of aggression which have resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands (probably now numbering in the millions) of innocent civilians, including children, and in the complete devastation of numerous countries and the immiseration of their people.

Wars of aggression are absolutely condemned in the “laws of nations.” The Constitution does not provide for the declaration of war or the raising of armies in order to commit wars of aggression. The Nuremberg military tribunal, convened in the aftermath of World War II to try Nazi war criminals, declared that “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

The assassination of General Soleimani and General Al-Muhandis must therefore be viewed in this context. These assassinations are tantamount to an act of war, an act of war which could be characterized as a war of aggression, the supreme international crime. And these assassinations were committed without even the consent of Congress, not that Congress has done anything to stop the illegal wars of aggression which have been perpetrated under the false justification (which is no justification at all) of the official story of September 11, 2001 — an official story which can be easily shown to be an outright pack of lies.

There is also the fact that these officers were going to attend funerals of militia members who had been killed days earlier in airstrikes which themselves were committed on the pretense that those militias had something to do with a rocket strike on K1 in Kirkuk, hundreds of kilometers away — allegations which must also be viewed with suspicion.

In point of fact, these militias (and their leader, the late General Al-Muhandis) were actively engaged in combating ISIS / Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and these airstrikes and now the murder of their general should be seen in the context of abundant evidence which points to the conclusion that ISIS / Daesh has been secretly armed and enabled all along by certain nefarious forces using it as a proxy force or a “foreign legion” to carry out regime change against the Syrian government (another war of aggression which has led to massive loss of life, displacement of families, and impoverishment and immiseration).

Indeed, General Soleimani has been widely credited with being the master tactician and strategist who enabled Syria to defeat the murderous brigands of ISIS / Daesh, which is part of the reason he was so popular and so respected.

A few years ago, all we heard about from the news-media and from politicians in the US was how horrible ISIS / Daesh was, and how important it was to defeat them. We hear next to nothing about ISIS / Daesh anymore — but for some reason those very men who are presently fighting ISIS / Daesh in Iraq are now categorized as “terrorists,” airstrikes are carried out against their outposts, and the cowardly assassination of their leaders while those leaders are driving from the airport on the way to the funerals of those killed by those airstrikes is celebrated as some kind of heroic accomplishment, with nary a voice in the controlled media raising a single question.

I am personally revolted by those who order and carry out drone strikes on funerals or on weddings, and I would argue that everyone who believes in the law of  law of God, or the “law of nations” described in the Constitution) should be equally revolted at such barbarous behavior.

The Declaration of Independence signed on July 4, 1776 spent quite a bit of space enumerating war crimes perpetrated by Britain, against which the founders of the United States were justifiably outraged.

The lines of the Constitution reproduced in the image above include the authorization (given to Congress, in Article 1, section 8) “to define and punish piracies on the High Seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”

By this we see that the founders held offenses against the law of nations to be in the same category as piracy — and no doubt they would have seen the assassination of officers of nations with whom a nation is not at war as a violation of the law of nations (indeed, such assassinations are universally understood to be a violation of the law of nations to this day).

We also see in this passage from the Constitution the rebuttal to those who will argue against my objections above, saying that “even if we are not at war with Iran or Iraq, we certainly must have recourse to stop their military leaders if they are plotting and committing crimes against our citizens or our soldiers.” To this rebuttal, I would first point out that the illegal invasion of Iraq was made under false pretenses, but beyond that, we can grant the objection and show that the Constitution clearly anticipates the likelihood that there will indeed be some enemies who do not observe the “law of nations” (including these enemies in the same category as pirates) — and that the Constitution quite explicitly gives the authority of defining and punishing such behavior to the Congress.

Thus, the Constitution makes provisions enabling Congress to act and deal with pirates and those who commit felonies in violation of the law of nations.

Tragically, however, if the members of the Congress are willing to accept the lies within the official narrative of the mass-murders perpetrated against American citizens on September 11, 2001 despite all of the evidence which has surfaced in the past eighteen years (or at least to pretend while in public that they accept the official narrative), then they will no doubt accept or pretend to accept whatever “evidence” is trotted out to show that the militia bases hit by the airstrikes last week were somehow connected to the rocket attacks on K1 in Kirkuk, and whatever “evidence” is trotted out to show that General Soleimani was planning some kind of extensive attacks on Americans in Iraq and outside of it.

But the fact remains that no such evidence was even brought before the Congress, prior to the moment that these extra-judicial assassinations by drone, tantamount to acts of war, were perpetrated.

But it gets even worse. We now have the spectacle of the US vice president, suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere, tweeting allegations (never heard before, even in the official report of the events of September 11, 2001) that General Soleimani was somehow partly responsible for September 11, 2001.

Does the big lie about the mass-murders of September 11, 2001 have no limit to its applications as a tool for attempting to justify new illegal acts, even today in the year 2020?

Can anyone still be so ignorant of the evidence that the official story of September 11, 2001 is an outright lie (a completely unsustainable lie) that he or she will fall for these arguments?

What makes this incredible and hitherto-unheard allegation against the murdered General Soleimani so shocking is the fact that General Soleimani actually assisted the US in strategic and tactical planning against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the immediate aftermath of the September 2001 attacks.

I myself was at West Point as an instructor at the time of the September 11 attacks, and at the time I uncritically accepted the official story attributing those attacks to fanatical Sunni extremists, and continued to do so for many years afterwards. For about eight years, I was vehemently opposed to any suggestion that the destruction and mass-murder that was committed on that day had somehow not been the work of nineteen hijackers with box-cutters.

However, it is no longer the year 2001.

More than eighteen years after the fact, there is simply no excuse for not realizing that the official story is an unsustainable lie.

  • World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint at a speed indistinguishable from free-fall speed, despite not being struck by any airliner.
  • Hijacked airliners continued to fly around for over an hour without being engaged by any military interceptor aircraft, even after the World Trade Center towers had been struck.
  • Something (we are told it was a jetliner) struck the Pentagon (the central headquarters of the entire American military) without ever being engaged by any ground-based air-defense assets.
  • Numerous military drills involving aircraft were taking place on that same day, by “astonishing coincidence” (unless we are prepared to believe that somehow these nineteen extremist hijackers also managed to schedule massive military drills on the same day that they had selected for their operation).
  • The crime scene of the collapsed towers of World Trade Center 1 and 2 was not investigated but instead was deliberately and rapidly destroyed, the steel carted away in short order, never to be subjected to rigorous forensic analysis.

The list of events which demonstrate beyond any doubt that the official narrative cannot possibly be true goes on and on.

To try to stretch this lie, the lie about what took place on September 11 and about who was responsible for those mass-murders of thousands of innocent civilians, over this week’s murders of General Soleimani and General Al-Muhandis is beyond belief.

The American people need to wake up and condemn the wars of aggression which are being perpetrated in their name, under absolutely false pretenses, wars of aggression which (in the words of the Nuremberg tribunal) constitute “the supreme international crime,” and they need to demand that their elected representatives condemn this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional behavior.

We have had almost nineteen years of evidence which shows that Congress will not lift a finger to stop these criminal and unconstitutional wars, as long as their constituents are not raising any outcry. We cannot expect Congress to do the right thing unless we demand it, in massive numbers and expressing our outrage at the crimes that are being committed in our name.

Nobody else in the world can do it for us — it is up to the citizens of the united states to make these demands.

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; [. . .]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [. . .]

*

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.

David W. Mathisen is the author of eight books about the connections of the world’s ancient myths to the stars. He is a graduate of West Point and has a masters degree in literature from Texas A&M University. His website can be found at www.starmythworld.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “To Initiate a War of Aggression Is Not Only an International Crime: It Is the Supreme International Crime”
  • Tags: ,

Assassination Is Not a Foreign Policy

January 6th, 2020 by Massoud Nayeri

Iraqi Parliament Moves to Oust All U.S Troops from Iraq

January 6th, 2020 by Joaquin Flores

In an extraordinary session on Sunday, 170 Iraqi lawmakers have reportedly signed a resolution requiring the government to request the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Only 150 votes were needed for the draft resolution to be approved.

The session came two days after a US drone strike on a convoy at Baghdad airport which killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces deputy chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh,” said Ammar al-Shibli, a lawmaker and member of the parliamentary legal committee, Reuters reported.

“We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country,” he said.

Around 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq, most of them in an advisory capacity.

In the face of the Iraqi people’s will, the Iraqi parliament is facing a historic test about voting to expel US troops from Iraq.

Expelling Iraqi troops has turned into a “national demand”.

During the funeral procession for General Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and al-Muhandis in Baghdad,  al- Kadhimiya,  Karbala and Najaf, hundreds of thousands of angry Iraqi mourners carried placards demanding an immediate withdrawal of “US terrorists” from their country.

Following the terrorist attack by the US, Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi asked the parliament to take a formal position based on Article 58 of the Iraqi constitution about the “illegal action” of the US army.

The prime minister said the US move was a violation of the Iraqi sovereignty and an affront to national pride.

The prime minister called the US act a dangerous move which will trigger another devastating war in Iraq and the region.

Since the US terrorist attack, rival political leaders have called for US troops to be expelled from Iraq in an unusual show of unity among factions that have squabbled for months.

Hadi al-Amiri, the top candidate to succeed al-Muhandis, repeated his call for US troops to leave Iraq on Saturday during an elaborate funeral procession for those killed in the attack.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraqi Parliament Moves to Oust All U.S Troops from Iraq
  • Tags: ,

The Terrifying Rise of the Zombie State Narrative

January 6th, 2020 by Craig Murray

The ruling Establishment has learnt a profound lesson from the debacle over Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. The lesson they have learnt is not that it is wrong to attack and destroy an entire country on the basis of lies. They have not learnt that lesson despite the fact the western powers are now busily attacking the Iraqi Shia majority government they themselves installed, for the crime of being a Shia majority government.

No, the lesson they have learnt is never to admit they lied, never to admit they were wrong. They see the ghost-like waxen visage of Tony Blair wandering around, stinking rich but less popular than an Epstein birthday party, and realise that being widely recognised as a lying mass murderer is not a good career choice. They have learnt that the mistake is for the Establishment ever to admit the lies.

The Establishment had to do a certain amount of collective self-flagellation over the non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, over which they precipitated the death and maiming of millions of people. Only a very few outliers, like the strange Melanie Phillips, still claimed the WMD really did exist, and her motive was so obviously that she supported any excuse to kill Muslims that nobody paid any attention. Her permanent pass to appear on the BBC was upgraded. But by and large everyone accepted the Iraqi WMD had been a fiction. The mainstream media Blair/Bush acolytes like Cohen, Kamm and Aaronovitch switched to arguing that even if WMD did not exist, Iraq was in any case better off for having so many people killed and its infrastructure destroyed.

These situations are now avoided by the realisation of the security services that in future they just have to brazen it out. The simple truth of the matter – and it is a truth – is this. If the Iraq WMD situation occurred today, and the security services decided to brazen it out and claim that WMD had indeed been found, there is not a mainstream media outlet that would contradict them.

The security services outlet Bellingcat would publish some photos of big missiles planted in the sand. The Washington Post, Guardian, New York Times, BBC and CNN would republish and amplify these pictures and copy and paste the official statements from government spokesmen. Robert Fisk would get to the scene and interview a few eye witnesses who saw the missiles being planted, and he would be derided as a senile old has-been. Seymour Hersh and Peter Hitchens would interview whistleblowers and be shunned by their colleagues and left off the airwaves. Bloggers like myself would be derided as mad conspiracy theorists or paid Russian agents if we cast any doubt on the Bellingcat “evidence”. Wikipedia would ruthlessly expunge any alternative narrative as being from unreliable sources. The Integrity Initiative, 77th Brigade, GCHQ and their US equivalents would be pumping out the “Iraqi WMD found” narrative all over social media. Mad Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council would be banning dissenting accounts all over the place in his role as Facebook Witchfinder-General.

Does anybody seriously wish to dispute this is how the absence of Iraqi WMD would be handled today, 16 years on?

If you do wish to doubt this could happen, look at the obviously fake narrative of the Syrian government chemical weapons attacks on Douma. The pictures published on Bellingcat of improvised chlorine gas missiles were always obviously fake. Remember this missile was supposed to have smashed through ten inches of solid, steel rebar reinforced concrete.

As I reported back in May last year, that the expert engineers sent to investigate by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) did not buy into this is hardly surprising.

That their findings were deliberately omitted from the OPCW report is very worrying indeed. What became still more worrying was the undeniable evidence that started to emerge from whistleblowers in the OPCW that the toxicology experts had unanimously agreed that those killed had not died from chlorine gas attack. The minutes of the OPCW toxicology meeting really do need to be read in full.

actual_toxicology_meeting_redacted

The highlights are:

“No nerve agents had been detected in environmental or bio samples”
“The experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure”

I really do urge you to click on the above link and read the entire minute. In particular, it is impossible to read that minute and not understand that the toxicology experts believed that the corpses had been brought and placed in position.

“The experts were also of the opinion that the victims were highly unlikely to have gathered in piles at the centre of the respective apartments, at such a short distance from an escape from any toxic chlorine gas to much cleaner air”.

So the toxicology experts plainly believed the corpse piles had been staged, and the engineering experts plainly believed the cylinder bombs had been staged. Yet, against the direct evidence of its own experts, the OPCW published a report managing to convey the opposite impression – or at least capable of being portrayed by the media as giving the opposite impression.

How then did the OPCW come to do this? Rather unusually for an international organisation, the OPCW Secretariat is firmly captured by the Western states, largely because it covers an area of activity which is not of enormous interest to the political elites of developing world states, and many positions require a high level of technical qualification. It was also undergoing a change of Director General at the time of the Douma investigation, with the firmly Francoist Spanish diplomat Fernando Arias taking over as Director General and the French diplomat Sebastian Braha effectively running the operation as the Director-General’s chef de cabinet, working in close conjunction with the US security services. Braha simply ordered the excision of the expert opinions on engineering and toxicology, and his high-handedness worked, at least until whistleblowers started to reveal the truth about Braha as a slimy, corrupt, lying war hawk.

FFM here stands for Fact Finding Mission and ODG for Office of the Director General. After a great deal of personal experience dealing with French diplomats, I would say that the obnoxious arrogance revealed in Braha’s instructions here is precisely what you would expect. French diplomats as a class are a remarkably horrible and entitled bunch. Braha has no compunction about simply throwing around the weight of the Office of the Director General and attempting to browbeat Henderson.

We see now how the OPCW managed to produce a report which was the opposite of the truth. Ian Henderson, the OPCW engineer who had visited the site and concluded that the “cylinder bombs” were fakes, had suddenly become excluded from the “fact finding mission” when it had been whittled down to a “core group” – excluding any engineers (and presumably toxicologists) who would seek to insert inconvenient facts into the report.

France of course participated, alongside the US and UK, in missile strikes against Syrian government positions in response to the non-existent chlorine gas attacks on Douma. I was amongst those who had argued from day one that the western Douma narrative was inherently improbable. The Douma enclave held by extreme jihadist, western and Saudi backed forces allied to ISIL, was about to fall anyway. The Syrian government had no possible military advantage to gain by attacking it with two small improvised chemical weapons, and a great deal to lose in terms of provoking international retaliation.

That the consequences of the fake Douma incident were much less far-reaching than they might have been, is entirely due (and I am sorry if you dislike this but it is true) to the good sense of Donald Trump. Trump is inclined to isolationism and the fake “Russiagate” narrative promoted by senior echelons of his security services had led him to be heavily sceptical of them. He therefore refused, against the united persuasion of the hawks, to respond to the Douma “attack” by more than quick and limited missile strikes. I have no doubt that the object of the false flag was to push the US into a full regime change operation, by falsifying a demonstration that a declared red line on chemical weapon use had been crossed.

There is no doubt that Douma was a false flag. The documentary and whistleblower evidence from the OPCW is overwhelming and irrefutable. In addition to the two whistleblowers reported extensively by Wikileaks and the Courage Foundation, the redoubtable Peter Hitchens has his own whistleblowers inside OPCW who may well be different persons. It is also great entertainment as well as enlightening to read Hitchens’ takedown of Bellingcat on the issue.

But there are much deeper questions about the Douma false flag. Did the jihadists themselves kill the “chlorine victims” for display or were these just bodies from the general fighting? The White Helmets were co-located with the jihadist headquarters in Douma, and involved in producing and spreading the fake evidence. How far were the UK and US governments, instrumental in preparing the false flag? That western governments, including through the White Helmets and their men at the OPCW, were plainly seeking to propagate this false flag, to massively publicise and to and make war capital out of it, is beyond dispute. But were they involved in the actual creation of the fake scene? Did MI6 or the CIA initiate this false flag through the White Helmets or the Saudi backed jihadists? That is unproven but seems to me very probable. It is also worth noting the coincidence in time of the revelation of the proof of the Douma false flag and the death of James Le Mesurier.

Now let me return to where I started. None of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Guardian nor CNN – all of which reported the Douma chemical attack very extensively as a real Syrian government atrocity, and used it to editorialise for western military intervention in Syria – none of them has admitted they were wrong. None has issued any substantive retraction or correction. None has reported in detail and without bias on the overwhelming evidence of foul play within the OPCW.

Those sources who do publish the truth – including the few outliers in mainstream media such as Peter Hitchens and Robert Fisk – continue to be further marginalised, attacked as at best eccentric and at worse Russian agents. Others like Wikileaks and myself are pariahs excluded from any mainstream exposure. The official UK, US, French and Spanish government line, and the line of the billionaire and state owned media, continues to be that Douma was a Syrian government chemical weapons attack on civilians. They intend, aided and abetted by their vast online propaganda operations, to brazen out the lie.

What we are seeing is the terrifying rise of the zombie state narrative in Western culture. It does not matter how definitively we can prove that something is a lie, the full spectrum dominance of the Establishment in media resources is such that the lie is impossible to kill off, and the state manages to implant that lie as the truth in the minds of a sufficient majority of the populace to ride roughshod over objective truth with great success. It follows in the state narrative that anybody who challenges the state’s version of truth is themselves dishonest or mad, and the state manages also to implant that notion into a sufficient majority of the populace.

These are truly chilling times.

In the next instalment I shall consider how the Establishment is brazening out similar lies on the Russophobe agenda, and sticking to factually debunked narratives on the DNC and Podesta emails, on the Steele Dossier and on the Skripals.

*

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 the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Terrifying Rise of the Zombie State Narrative

People from across the United States heeded calls from the ANSWER Coalition and CODEPINK on Saturday, resulting in protests against a possible U.S. war on Iran in more than 70 cities across 38 U.S. states.

The protests, demanding for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and ending sanctions on Iran, were called for earlier this week in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ordering of additional U.S. troops to the Middle East in response to protests following U.S. air strikes. Tensions quickly increased as the U.S. ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the popular leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, and, as a result, the protests quickly morphed into an emergency mobilization aimed at stopping what some fear could become World War III.

Tensions between Iran and the United States are nothing new, but have been steadily increasing ever since Trump formally reneged on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May of 2018.

Protesters across the country joined together to demand an end to U.S. presence in Iraq and the Middle East and to no new war with Iran. During the past nearly 30 years, more than one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of U.S. occupation, sanctions, and bombing, with the U.S. government having spent trillions of dollars.

Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign trail and after taking office that he would put “America first” and would bring our troops home. Instead, he repeatedly and recklessly brings the U.S. on the brink of war with various nations time and time again. But this far, many believe, he went too far.

Americans are fed up with endless wars, concerned about the future for their children, are appalled at the cost of war while the funding of services at home continually falls short, and deeply concerned about the wellbeing of innocent lives in the Middle East, and more. And so they joined together with one voice on January 4 to tell the Trump administration: “No War With Iran!”

Alabama

Birmingham:

Alaska

Fayetteville:

Arizona

Phoenix:

Tucson:

Arkansas

Little Rock:

California

Fresno:

Los Angeles:

Sacramento:

San Diego:

San Francisco:

Check the rest of the demonstrations here.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tens of Thousands Rally Against War with Iran in over 70 Cities Across US
  • Tags: ,

Canada’s official government response to the U.S. military airstrike on Iraq, that killed powerful Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani on January 3rd, basically says nothing, but also says a great deal.

“We call on all sides to exercise restraint and pursue de-escalation. Our goal is and remains a united and stable Iraq,” outlines a Global Affairs Canada statement, quoting François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as also saying, “Canada has long been concerned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose aggressive actions have had a destabilizing effect in the region and beyond.”

Let us consider, in regards to Canada’s official statement today, the lack of any real detail. Soleimani was “destabilizing” according to who? Soleimani carried out “aggressive actions” according to who?

Certainly the Canadian government press release fits into the political framework expressed by the Trump administration, who carried out the extrajudicial killing at the Baghdad International Airport.

Why is Canada’s Liberal government simply parroting U.S. talking points? This is not independent foreign policy. Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister is repeating the rhetoric of Trump administration officials, like U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, who is expressing support for and direct political links with President Trump’s decision to carry out the extrajudicial killing of Soleimani.

Yesterday, The New Yorker magazine published an interview with Vali Nasr, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a senior adviser to the State Department during the Obama Administration, that outlines clearly some of the influence of Soleimani politically and some of the context in relation to internal Iranian political structures. Additionally this feature article, also in The New Yorker, gives some background context on Soleimani.

Within these texts and beyond we clearly see the reasons why Canada’s official response to the Trump administration’s assassination of Soleimani can’t simply be a quarter page press release repeating the talking points of U.S. officials.

Canada’s selective expression of righteous indignation, in regards to human rights and international law, under the Trudeau government, is not limited to Iran, or the Middle East region. Under the Liberals we see a policy approach of hypocrisy, clearly outlined in this CBC opinion article, in regards to human rights, that also reaches across Latin America. For example, until now, the Canadian government has largely been reserved in criticizing systemic human rights abuses against indigenous people in Bolivia, documented by Human Rights Watch, that have taken place since the U.S. supported “transitional” government seized in La Paz, after the ouster of Bolivia’s first indigenous president Evo Morales in October.

On Iraq, in this very brief official statement yesterday, Canada works to normalizes an extrajudicial assassination by the U.S. military under Trump, as the air strike is a clear violation of Iraq sovereignty and of international law. Amnesty International writesclearly on this type of killing, “extrajudicial executions are not only acts of extreme cruelty, violating the laws of the countries where they are perpetrated; they also violate international standards on human rights.”

In 2018, at the United Nations Nelson Mandela Peace Summit, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that “Canada will always stand tall for democracy, the rule of law and human rights at home and abroad.” On Iran, the Liberal government illustrates, that in regards to the extrajudicial assassination of Soleimani’s in Baghdad yesterday, that “standing tall” for the rule of law, as Trudeau described it, is only selectively and hypocritically applied by the Liberal government.

Beyond the specific bombing at Baghdad’s airport, this assassination of Soleimani speaks in significant ways to the moves by the Trump administration in D.C., to push a chaotic, but also culturally imperialistic, strike first and plan later foreign policy approach. This policy orientation, that the Trump administration is pushing now, in regards to Iran and the wider region, is a framework mirrored in past U.S. administrations, particularly the George W. Bush administration in the years after 9/11.

Connecting current events to 2003 U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spoke out clearly against the air strike on Iraq. A statement that contrasts in extreme ways to Canadian politicians, including the NDP, who have failed until now to say anything meaningful on the assassination of Soleimani.

Vermont Senator Sanders stated on Friday, that Soleimani’s assassination “is a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East, which could cost countless lives, and trillions more dollars and lead to even more death, more conflict, more displacement in that already highly volatile region of the world.”

In this meaningful statement by Sanders, there is a link made between Soleimani’s assassination in 2020 and the 2002 / 2003 lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, this is an important connection.

Sanders stated, “it gives me no pleasure to tell you that at this moment we face a similar crossroads, fraught with danger. Once again we must worry about unintended consequences and the impact of unilateral decision making,” stated Sanders, who went on to point to the impacts of U.S. wars on working people, in saying, “I know that it is rarely the children of the billionaire class who face the agony of reckless foreign policy, it is the children of working families.”

Importantly, Sanders links the current Trump administration to the military actions of past Republican administration under George W. Bush, in outlining that “unfortunately Trump ignored the advice of his own security officials and listened to right wing extremists, some of whom were exactly the same people who got us into the war on Iraq in the first place. As we all remember Trump promised to end endless wars, tragically his actions now put us on the path to another war, potentially one that could be even worse than before.”

This statement by Sanders, that links the U.S. assassination of Soleimani with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, is important for Canadian politics for many reasons, first, because a fully fledged U.S. war with Iran would deeply impact the entire planet, including Canada, but also because of the political narrative on Canada’s decision to not join fully the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq has played in Canadian political identity over the last fifteen years.

In contrast to Canada’s decision, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, to not fully support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, today, the Canadian government is silent, with no serious response to a series of military offensive actions by U.S. military power in the Middle East, which could all lead toward a serious military conflict between nation states, a war that most certainly wouldn’t be isolated to one particular country, due to the complex array of political power alliances across regional borders, for both Iran and the U.S.

In referencing the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, let us also remember that the decision taken by the then Liberal government under Prime Minister Chrétien, to not fully join the U.S. invasion of Iraq, took place within the context of some of the largest anti-war demonstrations in the history of Montreal, with hundreds-of-thousands of people taking the streets in the winter of 2003 in Montreal on multiple occasions, with significant protests in other cities as well, including Toronto and Vancouver.

Today, the Trudeau administration consistently claims to support international institutions, the rule of international laws, the United Nations, but this open political complicity with the Trump administration on the assassination of Soleimani, shows that the Liberals simply aren’t stand up when it really matters, such as this critical turning point in the Middle East region.

The importance of speaking out politically and diplomatically against the assassination of Soleimani today is firmly rooted in protesting military policy that could lead to all out war, but also, critically, opposing the killing of Soleimani is also important as a protest against the continued normalization of U.S. extrajudicial assassinations around the world. U.S. drone strikes work in fundamental ways to undercut international law and the possibilities for a global “rules based” judicial framework, of interconnected legal accountability across borderlines, a framework that ironically the Trudeau government has spoken of generally supporting at the United Nations and beyond, as articulated many times by Liberal Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The lack of meaningful Canadian government response to the assassination of Soleimani, simply illustrates the profound hypocrisy of the Liberal government, documented extensively in the recent book The Trudeau Formula by journalist Martin Lukacs.

In failing to identify the U.S. airstrike on Iraq and the killing of Soleimani as a breach of international law, Canada supports, by default, the Trump administration’s efforts to break international law and any possibility for preventing conflict with international regulation, paving the way for future war crimes and acts of genocide to take place with impunity.

A wake up call for anti-war activists in Canada 

Importantly the air strike in Baghdad also serves as a wake-up alarm for activists around the world, as this points to a serious escalation toward a major global military conflict involving the U.S., Iran and many other powers.

In Montreal, the major anti-war mobilization in 2003 that targeted the Canadian government, demanding that Canada to not officially support the U.S. unilateral military invasion of Iraq, successfully blocked the Canadian government’s moves to engage in a major way with the U.S. war on Iraq. Although it is important to note clearly that some selective Canadian military units were on the ground in Iraq and Canadian arms companies and manufactures certainly did profit off the Iraq war, including SNC-Lavalin, all well documented by The Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade in Ottawa.

In the face of Soleimani’s killing, let us speak out against Canada’s official silence on this assassination and protest any complicity of the Canadian Liberal government in supporting the current Trump administration’s moves toward full-on military conflict with Iran and beyond.

Protests played a major role in ensuring Canada didn’t join the U.S. invasion in 2003 and activism can again play a role in blocking Canadian complicity in war policies by the Trump administration in 2019.

*

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.

Stefan Christoff is a musician, community organizer and media maker in Montreal, you can find Stefan @spirodon

The 2003 “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq had finally stopped. From the balcony of my room in Baghdad’s Al Fanar Hotel, I watched U.S. Marines moving between their jeeps, armored personnel carriers, and Humvees. They had occupied the street immediately in front of the small, family-owned hotel where our Iraq Peace Team had been living for the past six months. Looking upward, a U.S. Marine could see enlarged vinyl photos of beautiful Iraqi children strung across balconies of our fifth-floor rooms. We silently stood on those balconies when the U.S. Marines arrived in Baghdad, holding signs that said “War = Terror” and “Courage for Peace, Not for War.” When she first saw the Marine’s faces, Cynthia Banas commented on how young and tired they seemed. Wearing her “War Is Not the Answer” T-shirt, she headed down the stairs to offer them bottled water.

From my balcony, I saw Cathy Breen, also a member of the Iraq Peace Team, kneeling on a large canvas artwork entrusted to us by friends from South Korea. It depicts people suffering from war. Above the people, like a sinister cloud, is a massive heap of weapons. We unrolled it the day the Marines arrived and began to “occupy” this space. Marines carefully avoided driving vehicles over it. Sometimes they would converse with us. Below, Cathy read from a small booklet of daily Scripture passages. A U.S. Marine approached her, knelt down, and apparently asked to pray with her. He placed his hands in hers.

April Hurley, of our team, is a doctor. She was greatly needed in the emergency room of a nearby hospital during the bombing. Drivers would only take her there if she was accompanied by someone they had known for a long time, and so I generally accompanied her. I’d often sit on a bench outside the emergency room while traumatized civilians rushed in with wounded and maimed survivors of the terrifying U.S. aerial bombings. When possible, Cathy Breen and I would take notes at the bedsides of patients, including children, whose bodies had been ripped apart by U.S. bombs.

The ER scenes were gruesome, bloody and utterly tragic. Yet no less unbearable and incomprehensible were the eerily quiet wards we had visited during trips to Iraq from 1996 to 2003, when Voices in the Wilderness had organized 70 delegations to defy the economic sanctions by bringing medicines and medical relief supplies to hospitals in Iraq. Across the country, Iraqi doctors told us the economic war was far worse than even the 1991 Desert Storm bombing.

In pediatrics wards, we saw infants and toddlers whose bodies were wasted from gastrointestinal diseases, cancers, respiratory infections and starvation. Limp, miserable, sometimes gasping for breath, they lay in the arms of their sorrowful mothers, and seemingly no one could stop the U.S. from punishing them to death. “Why?” mothers murmured. Sanctions forbade Iraq to sell its oil. Without oil revenues, how could they purchase desperately needed goods? Iraq’s infrastructure continued to crumble; hospitals became surreal symbols of cruelty where doctors and nurses, bereft of medicines and supplies, couldn’t heal their patients or ease their agonies.

In 1995, UN officials estimated that economic sanctions had directly contributed to the deaths of at least a half-million Iraqi children, under age 5.

The economic war continued for nearly 13 harsh and horrible years.

Kathy Kelly with children in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 2016 (Provided photo)

Shortly after the Marines arrived outside of our hotel, we began hearing ominous reports of potential humanitarian crises developing in Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities. A woman who had been in charge of food distribution for her neighborhood, under the “Oil for Food” program, showed us her carefully maintained ledger books and angrily asked how all who had depended on the monthly food basket would now feed their families. Along with food shortages, we heard alarming reports about contaminated water and a possible outbreak of cholera in Basra and Hilla. For weeks, there had been no trash removal. Bombed electrical plants and sanitation facilities had yet to be restored. Iraqis who could help restore the broken infrastructure couldn’t make it through multiple check points to reach their offices; with communication centers bombed, they couldn’t contact colleagues. If the U.S. military hadn’t yet devised a plan for emergency relief, why not temporarily entrust projects to U.N. agencies with long experience of organizing food distribution and health care delivery?

Cathy, who is a nurse, Dr. April Hurley, and Ramzi Kysia, also a member of our group, arranged a meeting with the civil and military operations center, located in the Palestine Hotel, across the street from us. An official there dismissed them as people who didn’t belong there. Before telling them to leave, he did accept a list of our concerns, written on Voices in the Wilderness stationery.

The logo for our stationery reappeared a few hours later, at the entrance to the Palestine Hotel. It was taped to the flap of a cardboard box. Surrounding the logo were seven silver bullets. Written in ball-point pen on the cardboard was a message: “Keep Out.”

In response, Ramzi Kysia wrote a press release headlined: “Heavy-handed & Hopeless, The U.S. Military Doesn’t Know What It’s Doing In Iraq.”

Image on the right: Kathy Kelly holds Shoba at the Chamin-E-Babrak refugee camp in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2014, a few days after the child had been saved from a burning tent, during a fire that destroyed much of the camp. (Abdulhai Darya)

In 2008, our group, renamed Voices for Creative Nonviolence, was beginning a walk from Chicago to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. We asked Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid to speak at a “send-off” event. He encouraged and blessed our “Witness Against War” walk  but then surprised us by saying he had never heard us mention the war in Afghanistan, even though people there suffered terribly from aerial bombings, drone attacks, targeted assassinations, night raids and imprisonments. Returning from our walk, we began researching drone warfare, and then created an “Afghan Atrocities List,” on our website, carefully updating it each week with verifiable reports of U.S. attacks against Afghan civilians.

The following year, Joshua Brollier and I headed to Pakistan and then Afghanistan. In Kabul, Afghanistan, we were guests of a deeply respected non-governmental organization Emergency, which has a Surgical Centre for War Victims there.

Filippo, a sturdy young nurse from Italy who was close to completing three terms of service with Emergency, welcomed us. As he filled a huge backpack with medicines and supplies, he described how the hospital personnel managed to reach people in remote villages who have no access to clinics or hospitals. The trip was relatively safe since no one had ever attacked a vehicle marked with the Emergency logo. A driver would take him to one of Emergency’s 41 remote first aid clinics. From there, he would hike further up a mountainside and meet villagers awaiting him and the precious medicines he carried. In a previous visit, after he had completed a term in Afghanistan, he said people had walked four hours in the snow to come and say goodbye to him. “Yes,” he said, “I fell in love.”

How different Filippo’s report was from those compiled in our Afghan Atrocities List. The latter tells about U.S. special operations forces, some of the most highly trained warriors in the world, traveling to remote areas, bursting into homes in the middle of the night, and proceeding to lock the women in one room, handcuff or sometimes hogtie the men, rip apart closets, mattresses and furniture, and then take the men to prisons for interrogation. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch filed chilling reports about torture of Afghan prisoners held by the U.S.

In 2010, two U.S. Veterans for Peace, Ann Wright and Mike Ferner, joined me in Kabul. We visited one of the city’s largest refugee camps. People faced appalling conditions. Over a dozen, including infants, had frozen to death, their families unable to purchase fuel or adequate blankets. When the rain, sleet and snow came, the tents and huts become mired in mud. Earlier, I had met with a young girl there whose arm had been cut off, her uncle told me, by a U.S. drone attack. Her brother, whose spine was injured, huddled under a blanket, inside their tent, visibly shaking.

Opposite the sprawling refugee camp is a huge U.S. military base. Ann and Mike felt outraged over the terrible contrast between the Afghan refugee camp with a soaring population of people displaced by war, and the U.S. base housing military personnel who had ample supplies of food, water, and fuel.

Most of the funds earmarked by the U.S. for reconstruction in Afghanistan have been used to train and equip Afghan Defense and Security forces. My young friends in the Afghan Peace Volunteers (APV) were weary of war and didn’t want military training. Each of them had lost friends and family members because of the war.

In December 2015, I again visited Emergency’s Surgical Centre for War Victims in Kabul, joined by several Afghan Peace Volunteers. We donated blood and then visited with hospital personnel. “Are you still treating any victims of the U.S. bombing in Kunduz?” I asked Luca Radaelli, who coordinates Emergency’s Afghan facilities. He explained how their Kabul hospital was already full when 91 survivors of the U.S. attack on the Kunduz hospital operated by Médecins Sans Frontières were transported for five hours over rough roads to the closest place they could be treated, this surgical center. The Oct. 15 attack had killed at least 42 people, 14 of whom were hospital staff.

Kathy Kelly and Voices in the Wilderness delegation with Afghan Peace Volunteer friends in Bamyan, Afghanistan, in 2010 (Hakim Young)

Even though Kunduz hospital staff had immediately notified the U.S. military, the U.N., and the Afghan government that the U.S. was bombing their hospital, the warplane continued bombing the hospital’s ER and intensive care unit, in 15-minute intervals, for an hour and a half.

Luca introduced our small team to Khalid Ahmed, a former pharmacy student at the Kunduz hospital, who was still recovering. Khalid described the terrible night, his attempt to literally run for his life by sprinting toward the front gate, his agony when he was hit by shrapnel in his spine, and his efforts to reassemble his cell phone — guards had cautioned him to remove the batteries so that he wouldn’t be detected by aerial surveillance — so that he could give a last message to his family, as he began to lose consciousness. Fortunately, his call got through. His father’s relatives raced to the hospital’s front gate and found Khalid in a nearby ditch, unconscious but alive.

Telling his story, Khalid asked the Afghan Peace Volunteers about me. Learning I’m from the U.S., his eyes widened. “Why would your people want to do this to us?” he asks. “We were only trying to help people.”

Images of battered and destroyed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of hospital personnel trying nevertheless to heal people and save lives, help me retain a basic truth about U.S. wars of choice: We don’t have to be this way.

Admittedly, it’s difficult to uproot entrenched systems, like the military-industrial-congressional-media-Washington, D.C., complex, which involves corporate profits and government jobs. Mainstream media seldom help us recognize ourselves as a menacing, warrior nation. Yet we must look in the mirror held up by historical circumstances if we’re ever to accomplish credible change.

The recently released “Afghanistan Papers” criticize U.S. military and elected officials for misleading the U.S. public by covering up disgraceful military failures in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials were quick to dismiss the critiques, assuring an easily distracted U.S. public that the documents won’t impact U.S. military and foreign policy. Two days later, UNICEF reported that more than 600 Afghan children had died in 2019, because of direct attacks in the war. From 2009 through 2018, almost 6,500 children lost their lives in this war.

Addressing the U.S. Senate and Congress during a visit to Washington, D.C., Pope Francis voiced a simple, conscientious question. “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?” Answering his own question, he said: “the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”

What are the lessons learned from the rampage, destruction and cruelty of U.S. wars? I believe the most important lessons are summed up in the quote on Cynthia Banas’s T-shirt as she delivered water to Marines in Baghdad, in April, 2003: “War Is Not the Answer”; and in an updated version of the headline Ramzi Kysia wrote that same month: “Heavy-handed & Hopeless, The U.S. Military Doesn’t Know What It’s Doing” -in Iraq, Afghanistan or any of its “forever wars.”

*

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.

Kathy Kelly co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence. While in Kabul, she is a guest of the Afghan Peace Volunteers.

Featured image: Kathy Kelly and Maya Evans walk with children at the Chamin-E-Babrak refugee camp in Kabul, Afghanistan, January 2014. (Abdulhai Darya)

Some Devastating Facts About the Australian Bushfires

January 6th, 2020 by True Publica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Some Devastating Facts About the Australian Bushfires

On the surface, it made not one iota of sense.  The murder of a foreign military leader on his way from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of irresistible richness.  “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”  The words from the Pentagon seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared resist them.  “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.  The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

The killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force in a drone strike on January 3, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces, or Hash a-Shaabi and PMF Kata’ib Hezbollah, was packaged and ribboned as a matter of military necessity.  Soleimani had been, according to the Pentagon, “responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more.”  He was accused of being behind a series of attacks on coalition forces in Iraq over the last several months including attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019.

US President Donald J. Trump had thrown caution to the wind, suggesting in a briefing at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that an option on the table would be the killing of Soleimani.  The Iran hawks seemed to have his ear; others were caught off guard, preferring to keep matters more general.

A common thread running through the narrative was the certainty – unshakable, it would seem – that Soleimani was on the warpath against US interests.  The increased danger posed by the Quds Force commander were merely presumed, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was happy to do so despite not being able to “talk too much about the nature of the threats.  But the American people should know that the President’s decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives.”  (Pompeo goes on to insist that there was “active plotting” to “take big action” that would have endangered “hundreds of lives”.)  How broadly one defines the battlefield becomes relevant; the US imperium has decided that diplomatic niceties and sovereign protections for officials do not count.  The battlefield is everywhere.

Trump was far from convincing in reiterating the arguments, insisting that the general had been responsible for killing or badly wounding “thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill may more… but got caught!”  From his resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he claimed that the attack was executed “to stop a war.  We did not take action to start a war.”

Whatever the views of US officialdom, seismic shifts in the Middle East were being promised.  Iraq’s prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi demanded an emergency parliamentary session with the aim of taking “legislative steps and necessary provisions to safeguard Iraq’s dignity, security and sovereignty.”  On Sunday, the parliament did something which, ironically enough, has been a cornerstone of Iran’s policy in Iraq: the removal of US troops from Iraq.  While being a non-binding resolution, the parliament urged the prime minister to rescind the invitation extended to US forces when it was attacked by Islamic State forces in 2014.

Iranian Armed Forces’ spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi promised setting “up a plan, patiently, to respond to this terrorist act in a crushing and powerful manner”.  He also reiterated that it was the US, not Iran, who had “occupied Iraq in violation of all international rules and regulations without any coordination with the Iraqi government and without the Iraqi people’s demands.”

While the appeals to international law can seem feeble, the observation from the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnès Callamard was hard to impeach.  “The targeted killings of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Humandis are most [likely] unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal.”  To be deemed lawful, such targeting with lethal effect “can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.”

The balance sheet for this action, then, is not a good one.  As US presidential candidate Marianne Williamson observed with crisp accuracy, the attack on Soleimani and his companions had little to do with “whether [he] was a ‘good man’ any more than it was about whether Saddam was a good man.  It’s about smart versus stupid use of military power.”

An intelligent use of military power is not in the offing, with Trump promising the targeting of 52 Iranian sites, each one representing an American hostage held in Iran at the US embassy in Tehran during November 1979.  But Twitter sprays and promises of this sort tend to lack substance and Trump is again proving to be the master of disruptive distraction rather than tangible action.

Even Israeli outlets such as Haaretz, while doffing the cap off to the idea of Soleimani as a shadowy, dangerous figure behind the slayings of Israelis “in terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and others dispatched by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force,” showed concern.  Daniel B. Shapiro even went so far as to express admiration for the operation, an “impressive” feat of logistics but found nothing of an evident strategy.  Trump’s own security advisers were caught off guard.  A certain bloodlust had taken hold.

Within Congress, the scent of a strategy did not seem to come through, despite some ghoulish cheers from the GOP.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and chairman of the House Intelligence panel, failed to notice “some broad strategy at work”.  Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin, previously acting assistant secretary of defence and CIA analyst, explained why neither Democratic or Republic presidents had ventured onto the treacherous terrain of targeting Soleimani.  “Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?”  The answer was always a resounding no.

By killing such a high ranking official of a sovereign power, the US has signalled a redrawing of accepted, and acceptable lines of engagement.  The justification was spurious, suggesting that assassination and killing in combat are not distinctions with any difference.  But perhaps most significantly of all, the killing of Soleimani will usher in the very same attacks that this decision was meant to avert even as it assists Iranian policy in expelling any vestige of US influence in Iraq and the broader Middle East.  It also signalled to Iran that abiding by agreements of any sort, including the international nuclear deal of 2015 which the US has repudiated, will be paper tigers worth shredding without sorrow.

*

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]

In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. 

A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do. 

Let’s turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad’s international airport on Thursday. 

Let’s begin with this teleprompter reader and “presenter” from Al Jazeera:

It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald Trump. 

The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included “freezing”—polite-speak for theft—around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news “alternative fact.” 

Here’s another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for president. 

Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq and Iran were crossing the border—later drawn up by invading Brits and French—in pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can’t expect an arrogant sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram, and events dating back to 680 AD. 

Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra, Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis). 

Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions (including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural sites, which Trump said he will bomb. 

Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52 hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran’s revolution against the US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists. 

Pompeo said Trump won’t destroy Iran’s cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian infrastructure—hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques. 

Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:

Trump should be impeached—tried and imprisoned—not in response to some dreamed-up and ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father’s position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible for killing women and children. 

As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq, USA Today reports:

Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required “for the sake of our national sovereignty.” About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.  

No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen without a fight. However, it shouldn’t be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000 brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant. 

Never mind Schumer’s pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York didn’t go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans. 

Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their platforms being used to argue against Trump’s latest Zionist-directed insanity. 

More lies from The Washington Post, the CIA’s crown jewel of propaganda:

This is complete and utter bullshit, but I’m sure the American people will gobble it down without question. Trump’s advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder. 

Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out. 

Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now imagine the response by the “exceptional nation.”

We can’t leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for mass murder. 

Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda—in part responsible for the death of well over a million Iraqis—The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy. 

Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America—or rather the United States (the government)—is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war. This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats. 

Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in America, and the chattering pro-war class of “journalists,” and “foreign policy experts” (most former Pentagon employees). 

Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to the political wilderness. 

*

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.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

The US and Western partners are contemptuous of peace, stability, equity, justice, and the rule of law — waging war on humanity by hot and other means.

Where is the outrage in the West over the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis?

Under international law, killing them was Trump regime aggression.

US Supreme Court Justice/Chief Nuremberg Prosector Robert Jackson called aggression “the supreme international crime against peace…the greatest menace of our times.”

Time and again, I called the preemptive attack by one nation on another the highest of high crimes. All other wrongdoing pales in comparison.

Is greater Middle East war coming after Trump regime assassinations? Is this what its hardliners want?

Is Trump on board for hot war on Iran? Rhetoric isn’t policy. So for now take his bombast with a grain of salt, tweeting:

“Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites…some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats.”

Surely Iran won’t let Soleimani’s assassination go unanswered. It’ll respond in its own way at times of its own choosing — likely asymmetrically.

Clearly Iran, Iraq, and their allies want greater regional war avoided, notably not Russia and China.

On Saturday, Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi discussed Middle East developments.

According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, they “particularly focused on the aftermath of the US air strike at a Baghdad airport that resulted in deaths, including the assassination of Qassem Soleimani,” adding:

They called it “unacceptable to use force in violation of the UN Charter and that all countries must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states” — stressing that “unlawful (US) actions aggravated the situation in the region.”

They and their governments “will take joint steps (for) de-escalation.”

On the same day, Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif spoke by phone.

They called Soleimani’s assassination “a grave violation of the fundamental standards of international law and does not contribute to resolving the complicated issues in the Middle East. Instead, it will trigger a new round of escalation in the region.”

The question is how to prevent things from spinning out of control while making the US pay a price for its aggression.

Asymmetrical and diplomatic approaches on the world stage are wisest, Iran taking the high road in sharp contrast to US contempt for peace and the rule of law.

Over time, its hostile actions make more enemies than allies, weakening the country while others are rising.

Its endless wars of aggression and by other means hasten its decline.

Like all other empires in history, it’s self-destructing by its arrogance, high crimes on the world stage, and unwillingness to change.

Some of the latest regional developments are as follows:

Iranian IRGC General Hossein Salami issued a statement, saying “the assassination of martyred General Qassem Soleimani will be followed by a strategic revenge which will definitely put an end to the US presence in the region,” adding:

Iran’s response will come “in a vast geography throughout time and with determining impacts.”

On January 4, the Pentagon’s Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve reported that Iraq’s “international zone took indirect fire that landed outside of coalition facilities and potentially harmed Iraqi civilians.”

On the same day, Saudi Al-Arabiya television said mortar fire struck areas near the Iraqi security staff facility in Nineveh province.

Sources in Tehran said US warplanes terror-bombed Al-Bukamal, Syria in Deir Ezzor province where Iranian military advisors are located.

On Saturday, rockets struck close to the US Baghdad embassy in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

On the same day, other rockets struck near the Pentagon’s Balad airbase north of Baghdad.

Southfront reported that “Shia groups in Iraq may be on the verge of launching a new insurgency against US troops in response to” Pentagon attacks on the country.

Former CIA counterterrorism/intelligence officer Philip Giraldi called Soleimani’s assassination by the Trump regime “the long-awaited beginning of the end of America’s imperial ambitions.”

US war on Iran by other means turned hot. “(I)t will not end well” for the US, said Giraldi.

As of now, the region is more greatly destabilized by what happened in the past week.

Giraldi: “No American diplomat, soldier or even tourists in the region should consider him or herself to be safe, quite the contrary. It will be an ‘open season’ on Americans.”

Calling Soleimani’s assassination a “criminal” act of state terrorism by the US, “tantamount to…war,” Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said:

“There will be harsh revenge. Where? When? How? I do not know, but there definitely there will be some retaliation.”

Separately, a US surveillance drone was reportedly downed by Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units in Anbar province west of Baghdad.

Explosions were reported around Al-Kindi base in Mosul, Iraq where US forces are based. Iraqi Kata’ib Hezbollah warned its forces to stay clear of US bases.

Reuters reported one or more explosions heard in Baghdad. In Oom, Iran, a blood-red flag, symbolizing a call for avenging Soleimani’s assassination, was raised atop the Jamkaran mosque.

Other red flags were raised elsewhere in Iran. Mass outrage over aggressive US airstrikes continues as Iranians mourn the loss of redoubtable General Soleimani.

Will Trump’s aggression on Iraq and Iran ignite the Middle East powder keg more than already?

Near a boiling point, things could explode if US state terror on both countries escalates.

*

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 Herald Tribune

Trump’s Mass Deception on Iran

January 6th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Virtually all politicians lie, none in memory more repeatedly and egregiously than Trump.

It’s so excessively over the top it begs the question. Is he unable to distinguish between facts and fiction or is he inherently deceptive by nature?

His Big Lies fool no one informed on what’s going on at home and abroad.

The problem is they comprise a minority, not a majority of the public — and serial lying is a moral and ethical issue, not a criminal offense unless under oath.

Make no mistake. DJT’s ordered airstrikes in Iraq, killing around 30 paramilitary fighters connected to its military, followed by the assassinations of Iranian General Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Muhandis were US acts of war on both countries.

According to US law, an act of war means any hostile act occurring in the course of:

1. a declared war;

2. an armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

3. an armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

Under international law it’s much the same, notably a preemptive attack by one nation on the territory of the other.

It’s strictly prohibited by the UN Charter except in self-defense if attacked, clearly not the case in all US wars post-WW II, waged preemptively on nonbelligerent states — unjustifiably justified by Big Lies and deception.

According to UN General Assembly Res. 3314, aggression is defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations” — which prohibits a nation attacking another state preemptively.

Included in the UN definition is “(b)ombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.”

On Friday, Trump tweeted the following:

“General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more…but got caught (sic)!”

“He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people (sic).”

The above remarks apply to decades of US aggression — raping and destroying one country after another, polar opposite how Iran and its military operate.

Nearly the entire US political establishment and dominant media vilified Soleimani — most Dems criticizing Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraq for political reasons, most Republicans expressing support.

Even anti-war presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard said there’s “no question about (Soleimani’s) evil” — while criticizing airstrikes on Iraqi territory, saying:

“This was very clearly an act of war by this president without any kind of authorization or declaration of war from Congress, clearly violating the Constitution.”

Elizabeth Warren tweeted:

“Soleimani was a murderer (sic), responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans (sic)” — while opposing involvement in “another costly war.”

She and Joe Biden said that “no American will mourn Soleimani’s death.”

They were wrong. By email Friday to an Iranian friend in Tehran, I said the following:

My deepest condolences to General Soleimani’s family, Iran, and the Iranian people

for the Trump regime’s state-sponsored terrorism.

The only thing positive about its high crimes is they hasten the US decline.

Today I mourn with the people of Iran for what happened.

Bernie Sanders said the following in response to Soleimani’s assassination:

“Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars,” adding:

“Trump’s promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.”

While steering clear of demonizing or otherwise criticizing Soleimani, last spring Sanders falsely accused Iran of “support(ing) terrorism (sic).”

He called “prevent(ing) Iran from getting a nuclear weapon…an absolute imperative” – ignoring the Islamic Republic’s abhorrence of these weapons, wanting them eliminated everywhere, while failing to condemn nuclear armed and dangerous Israel.

He opposes establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, showing hostility toward the region’s leading proponent of peace and stability.

From his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort Friday, Trump recited a litany of Big Lies about Soleimani’s assassination he authorized, saying:

“(M)y highest and most solemn duty is the defense of our nation and its citizens” — at a time when the only US foreign threats are invented. No real ones exist, he failed to explain.

He turned truth on its head, calling Soleimani “the number-one terrorist anywhere in the world (sic).”

As US commander-in-chief, the dubious distinction applies to him. His regime and congressional accomplices share blame for endless preemptive wars on nonthreatening nations — a flagrant UN Charter violation.

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries! The Islamic Republic seeks regional peace and cooperation with other nations.

Trump: “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel (sic), but we caught him in the act (sic) and terminated him.”

No evidence was cited because none exists, no “imminent…sinister attacks” on US civilian and military personnel planned. Trump lied claiming otherwise.

He falsely accused Iran’s IRGC and Quds Force Soleimani led of “target(ing), injur(ing), and murder(ing) hundreds of American civilians and servicemen.”

Nothing of the kind occurred by him or Iran in the Middle East or elsewhere — a US, NATO, Israeli specialty, not how the Islamic Republic operates.

Trump twisted reality, falsely claiming “Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terrorist plots as far away as New Delhi and London” — again no evidence cited because none exists. Trump lied, adding:

“Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years (sic).”

“What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved (sic).”

Trump falsely claimed a US act of war as defined under international and US statute law was undertaken “to stop a war…not…start” one.

While assassinating Iranians and Iraqis, he falsely expressed support for their people the US  waged war on for decades — directly and by other means.

He falsely claimed credit for destroying “the ISIS…caliphate” the US created and supports — that Soleimani, Russian and Syrian forces smashed.

He turned truth on its head, claiming serial aggressor USA “seek(s) peace, harmony, and friendship with all of the nations of the world.”

His remarks came as the US war machine continues mass slaughter and destruction in multiple theaters — risking war with nonbelligerent Iran at the same time.

Baseball star Yogi Berra and movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn long ago commented on the hazards of making predictions — “especially about the future,” they said.

How the Trump regime intends dealing with Iran ahead is guesswork, war clearly an option — what hopefully cooler heads in Washington will prevent.

*

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 Gage Skidmore

Picture it. Macedonia. 1991-present. Macedonian politicians playing soccer against [insert any country here] and – not wanting to offend their opponent – spend the entire time playing defence. Whenever they make a save, they celebrate like they’re the best soccer team to have ever existed. When they inadvertently pass midfield, they immediately give up the ball and rush back to playing defence. They substitute different players, whose main goal is to get in the game but not to actually score. Instead of focusing on the game, they continue to scream and complain about how they should’ve been in the starting lineup. The fans are shouting “Go Macedonia! Shoot! At least TRY TO SCORE A GOAL!” and by sheer miracle, one player, actually listening to the fans, takes the ball, dekes out the other team, and scores! He is celebrated as the only Macedonian politician to ever put his team/country first but soon afterward, slinks away and completely hangs Macedonia and Macedonians out to dry.

And this is how Macedonian politicians, from both major parties, have always governed the Republic of Macedonia – with no balls. It’s painfully obvious that they should have never played the game. You can’t win by just playing defence – eventually the other team will score, and they will score a lot. And Macedonian politicians have played the game so poorly, they not only made their own team (the Republic of Macedonia) lose, they’ve taken all of Macedonia’s partitioned territory – and all Macedonians, past, present and future – down with them.

I’ve met with a lot of Macedonian leaders and politicians. They’re reading this – and they’re offended. I’m telling them here, and I’ve told them personally: Look in the mirror and see how your actions – and inaction – are taking down an entire ethnic group.

I’ve also told them that going on the offence is not offensive, especially when you have the truth on your side. (Should I apologize for my Canadian spelling of “offence” by the way? They would.) Instead of apologizing for existing, Macedonian politicians should be standing up for an entire nationality from relentless, public attacks by our oppressors – to admittedly redefine, and eradicate, what it ever meant to be a Macedonian. And this is the very raison d’etre of the Western-imposed, ironically-named “Prespa Agreement” – the illegal document that changes Macedonia’s name, and the identity and history of ALL Macedonians. By the way, Macedonian politicians would also apologize for my use of French – as that would anger their US overlords. Yes, the same ones who imposed the Prespa Disagreement.

So why would the US do such a thing? Imperialism. They want Macedonia in NATO, something that Greece (with Bulgaria hopping on board) had vowed to veto unless Macedonia gives up its name, identity and history and become “North Macedonians” from “North Macedonia” with a history beginning with the Republic of Macedonia’s independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. The terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” were handed over to Greece and Bulgaria, depending on context – as explained in multiple Articles of the 19-page document telling me who I am and who my people ever were.

After Macedonia was partitioned in 1913 among Serbia (Yugoslavia), Bulgaria, Greece and later, Albania, each country brutally suppressed the name Macedonia and executed campaigns of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Macedonian populations. The Prespa Disagreement officially validates Greece and Bulgaria’s campaigns, as it explicitly denies the existence of Macedonians in these countries. Yes, the West wrote a handbook wiping out an entire people.

Additionally, and ironically, in 1988, Greece made a sudden, dramatic propaganda switch and began claiming that the Macedonian name belongs to them, but that Macedonian people still “don’t exist”. So then, who’s writing this op-ed…? Greece decided to go on the offence with blatant, racist lies, while Macedonian politicians cower in the corner with the truth.

Since Macedonia has been a toy thrown around by our various oppressors, let’s play a game too. It’s called “What Would You Do?” Pick your character first, you’re either a Macedonian politician or a normal person:

Question 1 – When an oppressor claims that your ancient history belongs to them, do you expose their attempts at wiping out your people? Not if you’re a Macedonian politician, you either give your history away or you do nothing to prevent it (depending on which political party you serve).

Question 2 – When a different oppressor claims that your modern history belongs to them, do you hand it over then engage in dialogue with them and try to find “common ground”?

A normal person would go on the offence and point out that these acts violate their most BASIC of human rights. They would point out the sheer hypocrisy that the West – which CLAIMS to support human rights, democracy and the rule of law – are the ones aiding our oppressors in our eradication by forcing the Prespa Disagreement on us. (The oppressor behind Door #1, by the way, is Greece, and Bulgaria is behind Door #2. Now this is a Let’s Make A Deal game that I would refuse to play).

And a normal person would say OUR NAME IS MACEDONIA and the case would be closed. I told Macedonian politicians the same, repeatedly. I also told them to not negotiate the un-negotiable. That we already have a name. That it’s not theirs to give away. And the only reason that the West was pushing for a name change was because they agreed to negotiate it.

I also tell them, repeatedly, that the forced name change can easily be reversed. An illegally-imposed law is not law. It’s that simple. The Prespa Disagreement was forced on Macedonia in violation of Macedonian and international law, in defiance of the Macedonian constitution and parliamentary rules, and by ignoring every human rights convention that guarantees the basic right of self-determination. I tell Macedonian politicians that their ridiculous claims that “reversing the name change would be difficult” only serves to prove that they’re either incompetent or complicit.

The irony is that Macedonia would have WON, if it not were for Macedonian politicians, who took it upon themselves to play games with – and lose – our name, identity and history. The vast majority of the world had recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its real name. The United Nations condemned Greece and Bulgaria for its persecution of Macedonians and demanded immediate recognition of their large Macedonian minorities. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Macedonians’ favour in numerous cases against Greece and Bulgaria. This is what happens when you show self-respect, stand up for yourself and demand support – like the Macedonian minorities do throughout the Balkans. But what did politicians from the Republic of Macedonia do when they found themselves on a breakaway, and only needing one goal to finally put the anti-Macedonian “name dispute” to an end? Instead of scoring (ending the name negotiations that never should have begun), they turned around and scored an own goal.

This brings us back to the analogies. I don’t think there’s any confusion about them (save for, possibly, the Golden Girls reference at the beginning), but I’ll quote another old lady and explain them “just for case”. (My mother-in-law’s version of “just in case”). Gjorgi Ivanov, former president of the Republic of Macedonia, was the only player to have scored a goal – and he did so at the 2018 UN General Assembly when he decried the forced renaming of Macedonia and pointed out the sheer racism and hypocrisy of the West in imposing it. Self-determination was the key, and so is the fact that Macedonia and Macedonians have always existed as such. What did he do to follow up? Nothing. He had a multitude of options in preventing the illegally-imposed name change and he could’ve pardoned Macedonian political prisoners (those who dared to defy the West in opposing the name change) but he chose not to. He chose to obey the West instead, and he left the Macedonians who stood up for Western values (by defending their own human rights), to rot in prison.

The unathletic soccer players are Macedonian politicians from SDS and DPNE (“SDSM”, the biggest traitors in Macedonian history and the US puppets who executed the Prespa Disagreement and “VMRO-DPMNE”, the faux patriots who did nothing to stop the forced name change – so neither deserves the right to use the “M” for “Macedonia”. Macedonian politicians, are you offended again? Then WAKE UP and defend Macedonia). The substitutes are whichever party is in opposition at the time. And the Golden Girls reference is the beloved TV sitcom character Sophia Petrillo, who would tell delightfully, twisted stories from her childhood (“Picture it. Sicily. 1922…”) But, if the West’s anti-Macedonian actions were applied to her, all of her stories would be changed, along with her ethnicity, memories, and very being. She would be forced to say “Picture it. Washington D.C. 2020. The year everything I ever was, was erased…” Welcome to Macedonia’s world.

*

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.

Bill Nicholov is President of Macedonian Human Rights Movement International.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Upholding the History and Identity of Macedonia: Macedonian Politicians Don’t Even Know “How to Play the Game”
  • Tags: