Global Research

Last Friday, Australians got a taste of what the operational nature of the Prime Minister’s Border Force might look like. It began with a 9.16am press release that was issued featuring Don Smith, the Australian Border Force Regional commander for Victoria and Tasmania warning that “ABF officers will be speaking with any individual we cross paths with”.

The purpose of such a seemingly dramatic exercise? Examining instances of visa fraud at the gates of one of Victoria’s busiest stations.

The Gestapo-styled directive, given the absurd title of “Operation Fortitude” had an effect that surprised authorities, which should itself be a suitable gauge about how estranged this government has become from its citizens. Operating outside Melbourne’s busy Flinders Street station, the impression given was that there would be random checks of individuals in and around the vicinity.

Originally, Operation Fortitude was intended to conduct what would have been spot checks of taxi driver licenses and visas. Someone had either bungled dramatically, or become a revisionist versed in the evils of totalitarian bureaucracy.

At 1.46 pm that same Friday, the ABF would have to clarify that it “does not and will not stop people at random in the streets”. There would be no effort to purposely “check people’s papers”, something which they attributed to a media spin.

The ABF commissioner Roman Quadvleig had a stab at something of an admission: the press release had “incorrectly construed what our role was… it should have been better explained, it was clumsy.” Naturally, his pristine pure outfit was exempt from what the lowers in the organisation had done. The release, like that of a bowel emission, stemmed from “the lower levels of the organisation.”

An odd thing to say, given that the statement had been cleared by Mark Jeffries, the assistant secretary for communications and the media for the ABF. In any case, the distancing from other features of the execution has been palpable, with the immigration office claiming that ministers do not have a hand in directing operational matters.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton still had to concede to the Sunday Telegraph that his own office had received a copy of the operational briefing. “There was never any intent for the ABF to conduct visa checks during this operation. It is unfortunate that the poorly written Media Release indicated otherwise.”[1]

Then comes the boiling frog phenomenon – gradually, the dial is being turned up as the unfortunate body of liberties is being cooked. According to a spokesman for Dutton, “The information provided indicated that the planned operation was routine with the ABF’s role relatively low level in support of a Victorian police activity, so the media release was not reviewed and not cleared.”

This may, on the surface, look innocuous. But is a direct admission to an institutionalised role that conjures up images of uniformed men and women treating their quarry, not as citizens, but subjects who need to be found out. This activity takes place out of the view of the minister, who has his hands at the wheel while refusing to direct the vehicle.

In the apt words of barrister Charles Waterston, this was to be “the perfect storm for perfect storm troopers.” There would be a seamless operation involving the Metro Train operators, the Yarra Train heavies and those of the Taxi Services Commission.

Freshly created, with a nationalist zeal that is fast moving into the world of pantomime, the ABF is looking scratchily incompetent even as it claims it is protecting Australian “security” and the rights of the vulnerable. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, has likened the episode to Tony Abbott’s decision to award Prince Philip a knighthood, though it is far graver than that. “It’s sort of like a uniformed version of the Prince Philip decision.”

That said, spot checks on visas are not unusual, though the nature of this operation, with its pugnacious, state mandated thuggery, was. The previous Labor government conducted scores of such checks when he was Immigration Minister, ostensibly on the grounds of protecting the welfare of foreign workers. Not that Labor can aspire to the nobility of this higher cause either.

The Migration Act itself also vests immigration officers with powers to require a person “whom the officer knows or reasonably suspects is a non-citizen” to present evidence of citizenship status or identity. Protocols governing such inspections tend to be linked with police operations, but the ABF remains virginal in many respects.

Prime Minister Abbott’s reaction was to take to the book otherwise termed The Australian Way of Life to suggest that certain things were simply not done Down Under. Suggesting himself that the press release had been a mistake, deeming it “clumsy”, he also declared that, “We would never stop people in the street and ask them for their visa details. We don’t do that Australia.”

Such statements tend to suggest that such a policy’s time is up. The words, when it comes to such operations, are often indicative of that operation’s substance.  It was the stuff of “Brown Shirts, the army and ticket collectors working as a team to end the wholesale plundering of our transport system and porous borders.”[2]

The only salvaging grace in this was that the incompetence, and public reaction to it, were formidable enough to spark a reversal. Incompetence is one of those gifts from the heavens that scuttles venal operations, leading to their executor’s downfall and eventual abolition. Liberties depend on upon it, and refugees are only one part of that dire equation.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/border-farce-immigration-minister-peter-duttons-office-saw-border-force-visa-operation-briefing-ahead-of-its-release/story-fnpn118l-1227504270914

[2] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/melbourne-cbd-goes-full-mad-max-as-border-forces-operation-fortitude-slammed-into-reverse-20150828-gjaeuj.html

 

The Saker: How is Russia coping with sanctions so far and what are the prospects for the future?

Peter Koenig: Let’s begin with what are ‘sanctions’? – Sanctions are (economic) punishments by the self-proclaimed empire in Washington and its European minions on any country that does not follow the dictate of the empire. Actually, it’s worse. The European spineless puppets participate despite their own losses, lest they may be sanctioned themselves by the empire. In some cases, they are so submissive, like in the case of punishing Russia, they advance sanctions, against their own (economic and political) interests, just to please the transatlantic hegemon which is far away from the battleground – always stays far away from where the action is, so that others may get bombed and hurt.

Case in point: WWI and WWII – played out in and destroyed Europe, even though the impulses for the two ferocious world wars came from the US. The current ‘crisis’ around Ukraine is also entirely fabricated and instigated by Washington to the point of provoking another world war, maybe willy-nilly the last one of our civilization. Washington does not miss a beat for denigrating Russian President Putin, to enter the ever more transparently horrendous power game for Ukraine, where Obama’s men with the help of the European vassals organized a coup, displacing a democratically elected president – Victor Yanukovych – and put a criminal, murderous Nazi Government in place.

The idea is against all previous accords, making Ukraine a NATO country and as a side line usurping the Ukraine’s riches in agricultural land. Ukraine was for hundreds of years considered Europe’s bread basket, especially for the Soviet Union and later for Russia. Ukraine has also natural resources, notably minerals and natural gas. With an estimated 1.2 trillion cubic meters (m3) Ukraine has Europe’s 3rdlargest shale gas reserves. Shale gas is accessed by the highly controversial and socio-environmentally unfriendly extraction process called ‘fracking’.

The US economy which depends largely on the war industry needs constantly new wars and conflicts. More than 50% of its GDP depends on the military and related industries and services. Obama brags being currently involved in 7 wars around the globe, notwithstanding the almost countless conflicts around the globe, instigated, funded and carried out by proxies on behalf of the empire. But Mr. Putin has not fallen into trap. In fact, thanks to Vladimir Putin’s stellar strategic thinking and diplomacy, the world – especially Europe – has so far been spared a WWIII – the ‘would-be’ third war within 100 years.

To make sure the world at large believes that Russia is the culprit in the atrocious and deadly Ukraine conflict, sanctions have to be levied against Russia; Mr. Putin has to be slandered, insulted, vilified. The naked emperor’s word still has an impact in the western neoliberal hemisphere, whether politicians believe it or not – they do as if, the same way as people admire the new clothes of the naked emperor. Sanctions should punish the Russian people, evoke an internal rebellion and lead to ’regime change’. The contrary has happened. Mr. Putin with 85% enjoys one of the highest approval ratings of any democratically elected head of state.

The second question is – why can one nation alone, the US of A, impose sanctions? – Because the US had after WWII, when they called for the Bretton Woods Conference to establish the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) already one fix idea – to dominate the world through the weapon of finance. What wasn’t obvious then, has since become crystal clear. The self-declared victor of WWII dictated the rules.

With the US holding the largest gold reserves at the time, the ingenious idea was to establish a gold standard which would peg the US dollar against a gold price of US$ 35 / ounce and all other western currencies were pegged to the dollar. The IMF was created to watch over the western gold-based monetary system.

Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971 because (i) too many dollars were in circulation for the US to keep up with gold reserves, and (ii) the US debt left by the Vietnam War was to be covered by the sale of gold at market price which already then was about ten times higher than the fixed $ 35 rate. Yes, at that time even a Nixon Administration had some ethics, namely paying its debt.

But the real and hidden reason was brilliant. By leaving the gold standard, the dollar became de facto the world’s fiat currency of reference and main reserve money, basically replacing gold. Large international contracts were established in dollars, therefore increasing the demand for dollars. In addition, through a special deal negotiated between the Bush family, friends of the Saudi King, and the House of Saud, later formalized by Kissinger with the Saudi Government, Saudi Arabia as head of OPEC, was to assure that the dollar would remain the only currency in which hydrocarbons were to be traded in the future. In return, the US would assure militarily the Saudis security. Since everybody needed oil, everybody needed dollars. The demand for more dollars in circulation.

In comes the BIS – Bank for International Settlements, created in 1930 and originally set up to facilitate Germany’s reparation payments imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Today, the BIS, largely privately owned by the Rothschild group and other western banking families, is considered the central bank of central banks, controlling almost all international monetary transactions – most of which have to transit through a US based Wall Street bank. Hence was created a fraudulent fiat monetary system thanks to which Washington plays up to this day cowboy with the rest of the world. But this is changing rapidly.

The short of the long story explains why the US has (had) so much financial power over the rest of the world, including Russia; why Washington may seize and block foreign assets around the world at will, why it can coerce and ‘sanction’ other countries into behaving according to their, the US agenda.

This supremacy is gradually faltering and fading ever faster. Sanctions will become more threats than actual actions. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), as well as the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) countries are carrying out general trade in their own currencies. Russia and China are already trading hydrocarbons in their own currencies and others will soon follow.

The Cost of sanctions to Russia is a controversial subject. According to CNN, the sanctions cost Russia ‘more than US$ 100 billion’. At the same time, Newsweek admits that Russia could easily replace trade with EU by increasing trade with Asia and Latin America, thereby rapidly reduce the cost of ‘sanctions’. Newsweek also says that the cost of the US dictated sanctions on Europe to impose on Russia cost the EU at least € 100 billion. Indian NDTV reports losses to Europe at € 21 billion; at the same time they report 2013 EU exports to Russia as €119 billion. ‘Sanctions’ started in 2014.

The true story on the ground is increasing misery especially for Europe’s southern countries, like Spain, Greece, Italy; common people suffering manly from losses of agricultural exports and declining tourism. But also job losses throughout the EU, for example in Germany alone, lost and threatened jobs due to the sanctions on Russia (reduced trade) are estimated at more than 300,000. The chain of consequences is endless, but mostly hurting Europe – and especially not the trans-Atlantic Big Master and hegemon. Putin actually said that these sanctions are godsent, as it allows Russia to develop agriculture and industry to eventually become self-sufficient, meaning independent from western trade.

The question of oil prices and oil price manipulation is also a controversial story. Oil prices have dropped by about 50% within the last 12 months, to currently around US$ 50 / barrel. This price drop has certainly caused damage to everybody selling hydrocarbons. The benefit must be political, somewhere. Common wisdom would have it that Saudi Arabia in cohorts with the US is overproducing petrol to hurt the ‘enemy’, i.e. Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

However, an interesting new theory is emerging, namely that Saudi Arabia is increasingly realizing the decline of the west and is seeking a closer alliance with Russia and China – which are sure client for her hydrocarbons. Recent meetings between the Russian and Saudi Foreign Ministers, Sergei Lavrov and Adel al-Jubeir, most notably the latter’s visit to Moscow earlier in August would indicate a Russian – Saudirapprochement that is about more than just energy.

Some media outlets claim the Saudis see the sinking western ship and are seeking new alliances in anew orbit. The new Russia-China (BRICS, SCO) might welcome them against some political concessions. It might just be possible that in agreement with Russia and despite the temporary damage to Russia, the Saudis keep pressing the oil price down which may hurt the US shale or fracking industry more than Russia. According to the International Energy Agency the average breakeven for oil is around $60 / barrel – which makes many shale oil production sites no longer profitable, especially in Texas and North Dakota. These industries grew in the last ten years and are heavily indebted, thus bankruptcies abound. In Texas alone some 60,000 shale oil / fracking laborers are out of work. – You may call this ‘reverse sanctions’.

In addition, when gas prices dropped drastically earlier this year, many western shareholders of Russian gas companies panicked and sold off their shares at fire-sale prices – only for the Government of Russia to buy them back- at a net profit of $20 billion within a couple of days, as Spiegel-on-line reported earlier this year.

As we know, diplomacy between Lavrov and Kerry has not advanced an inch regarding Syria. To the contrary – ISIS, sponsored by the US, the Saudis and other Gulf States, but also the EU and NATO, is infringing ever more of Syrian territory, killing more civilians and causing a flood of refugees that are blocked from entering the EU – co-responsible for the massive Middle East destruction and misery.

The Saker: What is the complementary nature of the Russian and Chinese economies and what is the collaborative potential of these two economies?

Peter Koenig: What the different high level Russia-Saudi meetings might also have on their agenda, other than energy deals and weapon sales – is the Saudis taking an active role in helping demilitarizing the Middle East, particularly stopping sponsoring and arming ISIS and other anti-Syria terror groups – and seeking normalizing relations with Iran, both countries being close allies of Russia and China.

Russia and China have already a close association in mutual financial assistance with large currency swaps between the two central banks. They are also closely linked in trading, for which especially the recent huge gas deals testify. Russia has signed with China last year two enormous gas deals amounting to close to US$ 800 billion equivalent. The trade will take place in their respective local currencies not in US-dollars.

This and other hydrocarbon deals in currencies other than the US dollar will drastically reduce demand for the dollar and weaken even more the dollars credibility as a reserve currency. In 2000, international reserves were to more than 70% held in US dollar denominated securities. This figure has dropped in 2010 to 60% and is today rapidly approaching 50%. When the rate falls below the 50% mark, a flight out of the dollar may be expected.

Russia Inside and RT reported that Russia will issue in 2016 a new international payment card, the MIR card (MIR meaning peace around the world), in association with the Japanese JCB Credit Card system. When the new MIR card takes hold in the west, demand for the dollar and its credibility as a reserve currency will further drop. A collapse of the western fiat monetary system, the weapon of usurpation and destruction in so many countries around the globe, may be imminent.

Why did the Chinese currency ‘devalue’ and the Chinese stock exchange all but collapse? – Western media report as key responsibility a faltering Chinese economy. Look again: the Yuan was over-valued at the insistence of the US which made the Chinese central bank keep the Yuan fluctuating within a 2% ‘snake’ to the dollar, a request tolerated due to the enormous dollar reserves China holds, some US$ 1.6 trillion. Now the Bank of China has decided to let the Yuan ‘float’ to its natural value which will give it additional strength in the world market. This will make it more attractive as a world reserve currency – which is precisely what China is aiming for, namely that the Yuan will be admitted in the IMF’s SDR basket (Special Drawing Rights) which as of today consists of only four currencies- the US dollar, the British Pound, the Euro and the Japanese Yen. Adding the Yuan, would make the Yuan de facto an internationally accepted reserve currency, taking further weight away from the dollar.

As to the stock exchange – amazing is that western bankers propagandize a decline of the Chinese economy which by their own account (Bloomberg) is still growing at 7%, which is just what China wants. Knowing the impact the Shanghai stock exchange fluctuations have on the world markets, would not Chinese bankers be able, as their western counterparts often do, to ‘massage’ the Chinese bourse downwards, an indirect ‘sanction’ to the west – costing western investors and banks hundreds of billions of dollars, but changing hardly anything of China’s internal economy.

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, joined the Russian victory celebration over Nazi Germany on 9 May 2015 with Chinese honor guards parading alongside Russian troops. Similarly, Putin and Russian troops will join Xi in Beijing on 3 September to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the Japanese capitulation, the end of WWII. This sends a clear message of a solid Russia-China defense alliance to the west. The recent expansion of the SCO in September 2014 in Tajikistan – admitting India, Pakistan, Iran to the economic and strategic military coalition further enhances the emergence of a new power in the east.

These observations of change may signal that a tectonic power shift, not only in the Middle East, but around the world may be not far away. It happens gradually, not overnight – allowing unaligned countries to prepare for the new era – an era of sovereign countries living in peace and social justice.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance

The Saker: How is Russia coping with sanctions so far and what are the prospects for the future?

Peter Koenig: Let’s begin with what are ‘sanctions’? – Sanctions are (economic) punishments by the self-proclaimed empire in Washington and its European minions on any country that does not follow the dictate of the empire. Actually, it’s worse. The European spineless puppets participate despite their own losses, lest they may be sanctioned themselves by the empire. In some cases, they are so submissive, like in the case of punishing Russia, they advance sanctions, against their own (economic and political) interests, just to please the transatlantic hegemon which is far away from the battleground – always stays far away from where the action is, so that others may get bombed and hurt.

Case in point: WWI and WWII – played out in and destroyed Europe, even though the impulses for the two ferocious world wars came from the US. The current ‘crisis’ around Ukraine is also entirely fabricated and instigated by Washington to the point of provoking another world war, maybe willy-nilly the last one of our civilization. Washington does not miss a beat for denigrating Russian President Putin, to enter the ever more transparently horrendous power game for Ukraine, where Obama’s men with the help of the European vassals organized a coup, displacing a democratically elected president – Victor Yanukovych – and put a criminal, murderous Nazi Government in place.

The idea is against all previous accords, making Ukraine a NATO country and as a side line usurping the Ukraine’s riches in agricultural land. Ukraine was for hundreds of years considered Europe’s bread basket, especially for the Soviet Union and later for Russia. Ukraine has also natural resources, notably minerals and natural gas. With an estimated 1.2 trillion cubic meters (m3) Ukraine has Europe’s 3rdlargest shale gas reserves. Shale gas is accessed by the highly controversial and socio-environmentally unfriendly extraction process called ‘fracking’.

The US economy which depends largely on the war industry needs constantly new wars and conflicts. More than 50% of its GDP depends on the military and related industries and services. Obama brags being currently involved in 7 wars around the globe, notwithstanding the almost countless conflicts around the globe, instigated, funded and carried out by proxies on behalf of the empire. But Mr. Putin has not fallen into trap. In fact, thanks to Vladimir Putin’s stellar strategic thinking and diplomacy, the world – especially Europe – has so far been spared a WWIII – the ‘would-be’ third war within 100 years.

To make sure the world at large believes that Russia is the culprit in the atrocious and deadly Ukraine conflict, sanctions have to be levied against Russia; Mr. Putin has to be slandered, insulted, vilified. The naked emperor’s word still has an impact in the western neoliberal hemisphere, whether politicians believe it or not – they do as if, the same way as people admire the new clothes of the naked emperor. Sanctions should punish the Russian people, evoke an internal rebellion and lead to ’regime change’. The contrary has happened. Mr. Putin with 85% enjoys one of the highest approval ratings of any democratically elected head of state.

The second question is – why can one nation alone, the US of A, impose sanctions? – Because the US had after WWII, when they called for the Bretton Woods Conference to establish the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) already one fix idea – to dominate the world through the weapon of finance. What wasn’t obvious then, has since become crystal clear. The self-declared victor of WWII dictated the rules.

With the US holding the largest gold reserves at the time, the ingenious idea was to establish a gold standard which would peg the US dollar against a gold price of US$ 35 / ounce and all other western currencies were pegged to the dollar. The IMF was created to watch over the western gold-based monetary system.

Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971 because (i) too many dollars were in circulation for the US to keep up with gold reserves, and (ii) the US debt left by the Vietnam War was to be covered by the sale of gold at market price which already then was about ten times higher than the fixed $ 35 rate. Yes, at that time even a Nixon Administration had some ethics, namely paying its debt.

But the real and hidden reason was brilliant. By leaving the gold standard, the dollar became de facto the world’s fiat currency of reference and main reserve money, basically replacing gold. Large international contracts were established in dollars, therefore increasing the demand for dollars. In addition, through a special deal negotiated between the Bush family, friends of the Saudi King, and the House of Saud, later formalized by Kissinger with the Saudi Government, Saudi Arabia as head of OPEC, was to assure that the dollar would remain the only currency in which hydrocarbons were to be traded in the future. In return, the US would assure militarily the Saudis security. Since everybody needed oil, everybody needed dollars. The demand for more dollars in circulation.

In comes the BIS – Bank for International Settlements, created in 1930 and originally set up to facilitate Germany’s reparation payments imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Today, the BIS, largely privately owned by the Rothschild group and other western banking families, is considered the central bank of central banks, controlling almost all international monetary transactions – most of which have to transit through a US based Wall Street bank. Hence was created a fraudulent fiat monetary system thanks to which Washington plays up to this day cowboy with the rest of the world. But this is changing rapidly.

The short of the long story explains why the US has (had) so much financial power over the rest of the world, including Russia; why Washington may seize and block foreign assets around the world at will, why it can coerce and ‘sanction’ other countries into behaving according to their, the US agenda.

This supremacy is gradually faltering and fading ever faster. Sanctions will become more threats than actual actions. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), as well as the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) countries are carrying out general trade in their own currencies. Russia and China are already trading hydrocarbons in their own currencies and others will soon follow.

The Cost of sanctions to Russia is a controversial subject. According to CNN, the sanctions cost Russia ‘more than US$ 100 billion’. At the same time, Newsweek admits that Russia could easily replace trade with EU by increasing trade with Asia and Latin America, thereby rapidly reduce the cost of ‘sanctions’. Newsweek also says that the cost of the US dictated sanctions on Europe to impose on Russia cost the EU at least € 100 billion. Indian NDTV reports losses to Europe at € 21 billion; at the same time they report 2013 EU exports to Russia as €119 billion. ‘Sanctions’ started in 2014.

The true story on the ground is increasing misery especially for Europe’s southern countries, like Spain, Greece, Italy; common people suffering manly from losses of agricultural exports and declining tourism. But also job losses throughout the EU, for example in Germany alone, lost and threatened jobs due to the sanctions on Russia (reduced trade) are estimated at more than 300,000. The chain of consequences is endless, but mostly hurting Europe – and especially not the trans-Atlantic Big Master and hegemon. Putin actually said that these sanctions are godsent, as it allows Russia to develop agriculture and industry to eventually become self-sufficient, meaning independent from western trade.

The question of oil prices and oil price manipulation is also a controversial story. Oil prices have dropped by about 50% within the last 12 months, to currently around US$ 50 / barrel. This price drop has certainly caused damage to everybody selling hydrocarbons. The benefit must be political, somewhere. Common wisdom would have it that Saudi Arabia in cohorts with the US is overproducing petrol to hurt the ‘enemy’, i.e. Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

However, an interesting new theory is emerging, namely that Saudi Arabia is increasingly realizing the decline of the west and is seeking a closer alliance with Russia and China – which are sure client for her hydrocarbons. Recent meetings between the Russian and Saudi Foreign Ministers, Sergei Lavrov and Adel al-Jubeir, most notably the latter’s visit to Moscow earlier in August would indicate a Russian – Saudirapprochement that is about more than just energy.

Some media outlets claim the Saudis see the sinking western ship and are seeking new alliances in anew orbit. The new Russia-China (BRICS, SCO) might welcome them against some political concessions. It might just be possible that in agreement with Russia and despite the temporary damage to Russia, the Saudis keep pressing the oil price down which may hurt the US shale or fracking industry more than Russia. According to the International Energy Agency the average breakeven for oil is around $60 / barrel – which makes many shale oil production sites no longer profitable, especially in Texas and North Dakota. These industries grew in the last ten years and are heavily indebted, thus bankruptcies abound. In Texas alone some 60,000 shale oil / fracking laborers are out of work. – You may call this ‘reverse sanctions’.

In addition, when gas prices dropped drastically earlier this year, many western shareholders of Russian gas companies panicked and sold off their shares at fire-sale prices – only for the Government of Russia to buy them back- at a net profit of $20 billion within a couple of days, as Spiegel-on-line reported earlier this year.

As we know, diplomacy between Lavrov and Kerry has not advanced an inch regarding Syria. To the contrary – ISIS, sponsored by the US, the Saudis and other Gulf States, but also the EU and NATO, is infringing ever more of Syrian territory, killing more civilians and causing a flood of refugees that are blocked from entering the EU – co-responsible for the massive Middle East destruction and misery.

The Saker: What is the complementary nature of the Russian and Chinese economies and what is the collaborative potential of these two economies?

Peter Koenig: What the different high level Russia-Saudi meetings might also have on their agenda, other than energy deals and weapon sales – is the Saudis taking an active role in helping demilitarizing the Middle East, particularly stopping sponsoring and arming ISIS and other anti-Syria terror groups – and seeking normalizing relations with Iran, both countries being close allies of Russia and China.

Russia and China have already a close association in mutual financial assistance with large currency swaps between the two central banks. They are also closely linked in trading, for which especially the recent huge gas deals testify. Russia has signed with China last year two enormous gas deals amounting to close to US$ 800 billion equivalent. The trade will take place in their respective local currencies not in US-dollars.

This and other hydrocarbon deals in currencies other than the US dollar will drastically reduce demand for the dollar and weaken even more the dollars credibility as a reserve currency. In 2000, international reserves were to more than 70% held in US dollar denominated securities. This figure has dropped in 2010 to 60% and is today rapidly approaching 50%. When the rate falls below the 50% mark, a flight out of the dollar may be expected.

Russia Inside and RT reported that Russia will issue in 2016 a new international payment card, the MIR card (MIR meaning peace around the world), in association with the Japanese JCB Credit Card system. When the new MIR card takes hold in the west, demand for the dollar and its credibility as a reserve currency will further drop. A collapse of the western fiat monetary system, the weapon of usurpation and destruction in so many countries around the globe, may be imminent.

Why did the Chinese currency ‘devalue’ and the Chinese stock exchange all but collapse? – Western media report as key responsibility a faltering Chinese economy. Look again: the Yuan was over-valued at the insistence of the US which made the Chinese central bank keep the Yuan fluctuating within a 2% ‘snake’ to the dollar, a request tolerated due to the enormous dollar reserves China holds, some US$ 1.6 trillion. Now the Bank of China has decided to let the Yuan ‘float’ to its natural value which will give it additional strength in the world market. This will make it more attractive as a world reserve currency – which is precisely what China is aiming for, namely that the Yuan will be admitted in the IMF’s SDR basket (Special Drawing Rights) which as of today consists of only four currencies- the US dollar, the British Pound, the Euro and the Japanese Yen. Adding the Yuan, would make the Yuan de facto an internationally accepted reserve currency, taking further weight away from the dollar.

As to the stock exchange – amazing is that western bankers propagandize a decline of the Chinese economy which by their own account (Bloomberg) is still growing at 7%, which is just what China wants. Knowing the impact the Shanghai stock exchange fluctuations have on the world markets, would not Chinese bankers be able, as their western counterparts often do, to ‘massage’ the Chinese bourse downwards, an indirect ‘sanction’ to the west – costing western investors and banks hundreds of billions of dollars, but changing hardly anything of China’s internal economy.

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, joined the Russian victory celebration over Nazi Germany on 9 May 2015 with Chinese honor guards parading alongside Russian troops. Similarly, Putin and Russian troops will join Xi in Beijing on 3 September to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the Japanese capitulation, the end of WWII. This sends a clear message of a solid Russia-China defense alliance to the west. The recent expansion of the SCO in September 2014 in Tajikistan – admitting India, Pakistan, Iran to the economic and strategic military coalition further enhances the emergence of a new power in the east.

These observations of change may signal that a tectonic power shift, not only in the Middle East, but around the world may be not far away. It happens gradually, not overnight – allowing unaligned countries to prepare for the new era – an era of sovereign countries living in peace and social justice.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance

Foreign intervention has only worsened the situation in Syria.

In May 2014, the Syria Centre for Policy Research in Damascus released a report on the economic and social conditions in Syria. Its findings were staggering. More than half the country’s population lives in extreme poverty. Most school-age children no longer attend school, and 45 percent of its public hospitals are out of service.

By the time the report was published, almost 3 percent of the Syrian population had already been wounded or killed in the conflict. The carnage has only increased since.

As the human toll of the Syrian catastrophe spirals ever higher, one detail on which everyone can agree is that the situation is an ongoing tragedy. And the specter of humanitarian crisis has compelled every stripe of policymaker and pundit to call for some form of action — the need to do something.

But far too often the demand to “do something” sidesteps what has already been done — there is a foundational assumption that the ruin and bloodshed of this terrible war have been produced by inaction.

Take as an examphttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/syria-civil-war-nato-military-intervention/le Nader Hashemi and Danny Postel, heads of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver. Their edited collection, The Syria Dilemma, hopes to present an “array of contending perspectives [reflecting] the profound dilemma that Syria confronts us with.”

What perspectives have they set into contention with one another? Most are united by a call for some projection of American power. Familiar interventionist tropes are presented. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) receives frequent mention. The book cites the Bosnia example at least eight times, along with mentions of Rwanda.

This isn’t unique to discussions about Syria. Policy wonks, such as Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute, see the example of Bosnia — indeed, of the total breakup of Yugoslavia — as a sound precedent for American policy goals in Syria. In a paper dated June 2015, O’Hanlon places Bosnia alongside Afghanistan and Somalia as a desirable model for the fragmentation he recommends for Syria.

In addition to a “confederate” Syria that could entail all-out partition, O’Hanlon calls for increased intervention in the form of guns and training provided to selected Syrian opposition outfits, protective safe zones governed by US troops, and the demolition of the existing government air force. For O’Hanlon, the problem with US policy in Syria is that it hasn’t gone nearly far enough.

Or, to try another example, there is Robert Kaplan’s recent article inForeign Policy proclaiming that the violence in which the Middle East is currently mired comes as the result of a “demonstrably hands-off approach” to recent events in the Middle East by an Obama administration that has neglected its role of “organizing and stabilizing the region.” News sources like CNN have, as late as August 2014, been asking why the US has not yet intervened in Syria as it has in Iraq.

All these narratives share either explicitly or implicitly a history of the Syrian conflict that simply does not hold up under critical scrutiny. Indeed, the official chronology of events in these pro-intervention narratives — about a peaceful revolution turned reluctantly to arms, and thus in need of a military savior — eclipses the actual, far more complicated one.

The Tropes of Interventionism

Indeed, calls for increased intervention have a long history in Syria. These appeals in the US press have long been tied to calls made within the Syrian opposition. They began early,within the first year, and often rather vociferously. But the signals regarding intervention from what was then the most influential exile opposition outfit, the Syrian National Council (SNC), were in the first year of the uprising muddy.

On the one hand, they claimed to oppose military intervention, but on the other, called on the “international community” to “protect the Syrian people.” Still, this SNC line was always clearer than any of their other demands, suggesting that intervention was for many a crucial piece of the vision for what they and its local Syrian allies called the Syrian revolution.

Another claim which reality complicates is the frequent one of how, when, and where the revolt turned to arms. The popular narrative in the United States, promoted by the US State Department, is one in which a people in the face of state repression turned to violence only when they had to. But that is not quite true. Violence and militarization from the opposition on the ground began quite early — during the first month of the uprising.

Joshua Landis, director for the Center of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, for example, published information in April 2011 contradicting claims made in the Western press about nine Syrian soldiers shot and killed in Banyas. News outlets had reportedthat the soldiers were shot by Syrian Army officials for refusing to shoot on protesters.

Among the pieces of evidence that Landis brandished was testimony from Col. ’Uday Ahmad, who claimed that the soldiers, driving in a moving truck, were shot at from two directions — from a rooftop and from “behind the cement median of the highway.” Video footage corroborated the story.

Normally to bring forward such facts is to invite the suggestion that one is offering apologetics for the government of Bashar al-Assad. In fact, that has been a consistent leitmotif of Western and Arab debate over the conflict. As a result, that debate has gone forward without the necessary information to understand what exactly has been going on in Syria over the past four years.

That undigested information includes even the true extent of US involvement in Syria. When reports first emerged that the United States was sending troops to the Jordan-Syria border, the general response of the US left was a collective shrug. More reports emergedthat the US has been using its new Jordan base as a staging ground to train elements of the armed opposition. And from there, US arming of rebels has only increased in recent years.

These reports point not only to general conclusions, but also to specific questions: how large is the US base in Jordan and what exactly goes on there on a day-to-day basis?

Nowadays, fewer guesses are necessary as to the size and scope of this project. On June 12, the Washington Post published a story about “budget cuts” facing the CIA program for Syria. Shoehorned into the story was the disclosure that the initiative “has become one of the agency’s largest covert operations” to the tune of nearly $1 billion dollars a year, with “Syria-related operations [accounting] for about $1 for every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget” and the CIA having “trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.”

In other words, the United States launched a full-scale war against Syria, and few Americans actually noticed.

Another major assumption driving calls for interventions is a belief that interventionist action and local Syrian revolutionary action are complementary. In order to stage this argument, commentators tend towards assuming rather than demonstrating that a revolution has been underway in Syria since 2011. Perhaps the core of this incoherence lies in the dedication of Hashemi’s and Postel’s book: “To the Syrian People.”

The abstract embrace of this people, in itself belying the concrete conditions of a four-year war, is connected to another leitmotif of Syria discussions: any refusal to replace analysis of the situation within the country and its relationship with broader international politics with a neat, generalized “will” of the people narrative is to deny Syrian “agency.”

Hashemi’s and Postel’s project stands with the Syrian people. But with which Syrian people exactly? Syria is gripped by war, and it is clear that large sectors of the lower classes, particularly those among the country’s ethnic and religious minorities, are still with the government.

The popular narrative of the People versus the Dictator — one piece in Hashemi’s and Postel’s book describes it as a conflict between “a dictatorship” and “a democratic opposition” — elides the reality of varying classes and sects with various social roles and politics.

This narrative is, in other words, a cartoon. More than that, it is a cartoon that overshadows the central contradiction currently at play in the Syrian situation: one between imperialists and various resistance movements, as well as the states supporting them.

This is not to say that works like The Syria Dilemma deny the internal divisions of Syria altogether. The reality of sectarianism is too obvious to ignore, and no responsible discussion of sectarianism in Syria can ignore the sectarian flavor of much of the Syrian opposition — the most powerful factions of which, from Jabhat al-Nusra to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, either pledge allegiance to al-Qaeda formally or, even in the case of portions of the US-backed “moderate” armed opposition, adopt many of its main attitudes and beliefs.

Discussing a US and Saudi-supported commander of the Syria Revolutionaries Front, Matthew Barber calls attention to his insistence on justifying opposition to ISIS on the grounds of anti-Shi’ism.

Barber insists that the problem with this justification is twofold: “first, no one has targeted Shiites with more violence than al-Qaida, and second, one of the defining features of al-Qaida’s immoral character is the intolerance that typifies their ideology.” Barber goes on to state that such logic demonstrates that “even the rebel enemies of ISIS are more influenced than they’d like to admit by the intolerant outlook of al-Qaeda itself.”

The armed opposition groups that hold the most territory are like-minded. Large swaths of central and eastern Syria are ruled by the Islamic State. Highly influential in Idlib and Aleppo are groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and Ahrar al-Sham, now being marketed in mainstream US publications such as the Washington Post as a “moderate” organization worthy of US support. The two organizations work together routinely.

In Idlib particularly, Ahrar al-Sham delegated responsibilities for governance of Druze villages to Jabhat al-Nusra, which proceeded to massacre at least twenty Druze. The BBC has reported that “activists in Idlib have reported that Druze in Idlib have been subjected to religious persecution by al-Nusra with several hundred forced to convert to Sunni Islam.”

These dynamics present only one of the major challenges to anyone making claims of a Syrian revolution. The most politically determinant parties in war are, after all, armed actors. If the armed revolt in Syria is part of a revolutionary movement, why are the most powerful and influential actors among the armed forces bigoted?

Now, the sectarian question has always in one way or another exposed the domination of liberal academics in Middle East Studies through the sheer preponderance of opinions assuming sectarian conflict to be a permanent feature of the region.

Hashemi’s and Postel’s book may ultimately avoid this crude and popular determinism, but only to end up trading one major misbelief for several others. To begin, a piece in the book by Michael Ignatieff declares the Syrian government the sole cause of sectarianism when he calls it Assad’s “poisonous gift to Syria,” presumably because of the high representation rates of Alawis — the minority sect to which the Assad family belongs — throughout the Syrian government.

Ignatieff’s strategy is popular, wherein sectarian tensions in Syria are laid at the doorstep of the historically repressed Alawi minority sect — the target nowadays of open calls for genocide from segments of the armed opposition — and the Syrian government, with both entities treated as one another’s means of enforcement.

Certainly major positions in the Syrian state have long been occupied by Alawis. One reason dates back to the French colonial period, when Alawis — long kept from the levers of power — were encouraged to join the armed forces. Another dates back to the ascendency of theBa’ath Party in the 1960s, when rifts between Sunni party members opened up positions to Alawi officers. (Many Alawis, who were peasants, had been attracted to the Ba’ath Party for its emphasis on the peasantry.)

But for the claim that sectarianism was injected into Syria by Assad to stick, it must be proven that regular Alawis generally benefitteduniquely from the government’s rule. The evidence for this claim does not seem to exist, and at any rate Ignatieff does not seem in a hurry to provide it.

Likewise, the sectarianism cannot be pinned on Syria-supporter Iran, governed by a Shi’i Muslim government, which continues to negotiate its ties to the Sunni Islamic Jihad of Gaza (albeit, in an increasingly complicated environment) and sends arms and funds to the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

But these realities are often ignored, while Salafi supremacist sectarianism within opposition ranks in Syria is explained away: it exists, in the words of Hashemi’s and Postel’s introduction, at once “due to funding from Islamic charities in the Persian Gulf,” and due to “the absence of significant support from the international community for the opposition’s more democratic elements . . .”

In other words, sectarianism among the opposition exists both because of intervention and because of a lack of intervention. Once again, perhaps then the wisdom of intervention in Syria may be judged by the intervention that has already occurred: not only have “Islamic charities” armed and funded the opposition, but so haveentire states, including Saudi Arabia, which exploits sectarian Wahhabi ideology to dubious ends while maintaining ratheramenable geopolitical relations with Hashemi’s and Postel’s “international community,” i.e. the United States.

Alternatively, the sectarian elements that dominate the armed opposition in Syria are, according to one writer in The Syria Dilemma, Afra Jalabi, the result of a revolution “hijacked” by outside forces.

This is not entirely accurate, although to draw the relationship between local Syrian forces and outside imperil connivance has at times invited the charge of “conspiracy theory” — another leitmotif tossed at anti-imperialists in the course of debates about Syria.

Here it must be said that while international connivance against Syria — one involving varying degrees of coordination between the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and other parties — has played in important role in the tragedy before us, the ruin of Syria is really a product of these powers’ relationship with reactionary forces in Syria and elsewhere.

To be more specific, Saudi Arabia, which has intervened with sectarian propaganda years in advance of 2011 and also with arms and funds, has certainly accelerated the sectarianism seen now among opposition ranks, but it did not single-handedly create the class base for it. Rather, conspiracy proved successful precisely because imperialist forces had a local social base with which to work, even before troves of sectarian fighters began invading Syria from other countries.

Even the (by far) strongest entry in The Syria Dilemma, an anti-intervention effort from Aslı Ü. Bâli and Aziz Rana, fails to delineate the politics of the rebels in Syria. This particular article does prove an exception in the book, containing real strengths.

It states, against the spirit of the book’s introduction, that “it is intervention, not its absence, that fuels the blood-letting in Syria.” It endorses a negotiated political settlement with elements of the Syrian government as a path to peace.

All of this is to say that one cannot comprehensively understand the imperialist assault on Syria without undertaking a thorough analysis of Syrian society and recognizing who is who. Any serious review of recent events in Syria must attempt to grapple with the class basis of this armed insurgent movement: that is, both with the conditions that led to its creation and its general vision for Syrian society.

Therefore, a historical corrective is in order — one which gives justice to the dynamics of Syrian society, but also places them into the context of global capitalism.

The Major Political Players

Before a specific study of the origins of the armed sectarian insurgents in Syria can be advanced, a general analysis of the currently contending forces in Syrian society outside of the armed insurrection must first be set down.

The 2011 revolt was launched in three major layers: the protests in towns like Dara’a, Idlib, Homs, and Hama; the exile organizations in dialogue with the United States, namely the Syrian National Council (and now the National Syrian Coalition); and the violent agitations against the Syrian state, which eventually evolved into a total insurrection.

The protests began in the southern city of Dara’a, where anger stirredagainst the local head of security (a relative of Assad’s) following the arrest  of children writing anti-government graffiti. In response to the abuses extending from the state’s harsh security response to protests, the Syrian Communist Party backed calls for investigations into the state’s harsh crackdowns on protestors and called for reforms to reverse “the trend toward economic liberalization,” such as the full nationalization of several industries to prevent further infiltration of “private monopoly capital.”

In the case of both Syrian Communist Parties, historically victims of state repression in Syria, there was a call to oppose imperialist machinations against Syria, to oppose civil war, and for the implementation of economic and political reform.

Also active early on, as something of an alternative to the SNC, was the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCC), chaired by Hassan Abdel Azim. The NCC, unlike the SNC, maintained a staunch position against militarization of the Syrian opposition  and against foreign intervention.

As a Ya Libnan report from 2012 makes clear, the pro-revolution online voices launched a sustained campaign to paint the NCC, an organization with members who have been among the Syrian leftists jailed in government prisons, as capitulators.

The report noted that the NCC “rejects all forms of foreign military involvement, including arming the FSA” and that “it is common to see activists online charge the NCC and jihadist groups with the same unforgivable crime: collaboration with the mukhbarat, Syria’s hated internal intelligence services.”

A major component of the NCC’s prescience regarding the effects of foreign intervention was not only its theoretical rejection of militarization as a plan easily exploited by outside powers, but also its rejection of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) — the initial name for military opposition in Syria — as an entity. The outfit was not, the NCC stated, representative of the country’s best interests.

In 2012, the NCC released a statement on conclusions reached at an opposition conference in Cairo. In addition to blaming the government for fomenting sectarian violence and declaring solidarity with Syrian Kurds, the statement emphasized that the FSA was not subject to checks within the opposition, betraying opposition groups and declaring itself sole representative of the opposition; that it destabilized the country with violence, opening up space for sectarianism; allowed for infiltration of foreign and jihadist groups; opened itself up to splintering and factionalism; and lacked the power to carry out its fight, allowing it to be easily co-opted.

The NCC does not deserve dismissal, as it is, unlike the exile SNC, Syria-based; it must live with the material consequences of whatever political path it decides to pursue. From the beginning, it has forwarded conditions for dialogue with the Syrian government, a prescience that has now been extended into a path for a war-ending solution. Dialogue is no less the route to a solution today.

The NCC and the SNC were defined by a larger split between leftism and liberalism, with the latter speaking exclusively of liberal human rights and a “civil state.” Expressing an anti-capitalist politics, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), which developed in 2003 amid intense repression from Syrian security forces and out of a history of Ba’athist denial of Kurdish national claims, tentatively took the side of the Syrian state against the opposition movement.

This early decision is an important example of how exactly the question of intervention, and the related issue of Syrian sovereignty, formed the primary bases for the dawning divisions of the war.

The PYD’s decision was an immediate matter of survival, made in partial response to the SNC’s decision to deny Kurdish requests for autonomy to appease Turkey, the historic enemy of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), of which the PYD is an affiliate.

Here the call for intervention entailed an exclusivist vision, one that illuminates one of the many threats intervention posed: between its implementation and anti-Kurdish racism, one went with the other.

In stark contrast, the PYD has forwarded an inclusive vision — a commune — for Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Turkmen, Chaldeans and others. The space for this revolutionary project was created in opposition to the movement that was labeled revolutionary in Western media, including the Free Syrian Army.

Amid the brutal sectarian strife across Syria and the Middle East, the PYD’s project in Rojava has over the past year understandably appeared as a spark of hope to many leftists in the West. Their admiration is not misplaced.

But it must still be said that the future of Rojava very much rests on how much room the PYD decides to give to the United States as it considers exploiting the party to deepen divides in Syria. If that room is too spacious, the PYD will compromise more than its anti-imperialism.

The position of tentative support for the state was also generally adopted by both ethnic and religious minorities, includingArmenians, Alawis, and Christians. As Joshua Landis has commented, Bashar al-Assad “very much has a power base. The core constituency, of course, are Alawite Syrians, about 12 percent of the country, 3 million people, give or take. Christians, another 5 to 6 percent, support him but are not carrying a lot of water. So [are] the Druze and other religious minorities that make up 20 percent of Syria.”

According to the thesis of The Syria Dilemma, the chief blame for these decisions would fall on these minority groups for following the sectarian logic of the Syrian government. Consider another possibility: these people knew things about the armed revolt that others did not.

Any understanding of the ways in which these events — the armed insurgency, the protests, the calls for intervention — and political bodies interacted with each other cannot be separated from the structural elements that produced them. These elements existed within the overlapping realms of politics and religion at once, with class at the core of it all.

The Origins of Revolt

The Ba’ath Party, in its initial years, organized along class lines with a broadly populist program and, more so than is the case now, was staunchly secularist.

Although capitalist classes increased their influence in Syria after Bashar’s financialization of the country’s economy, and before that with Hafez’s liberalization in the early 1990s, the Ba’ath Party established its legacy in the countryside. The Arab Socialist Party, which would merge with the Ba’athists in 1952, was the first organization to politically organize the rural territories of Syria.

This policy did not make the Ba’ath Party socialist in any meaningful sense — it never opposed private property or carried out deep structural reforms, even though it did redistribute wealth and, in the words of a report by Raymond Hinnebusch, “block the bourgeoisie from reasserting control over the bulk of the agrarian surplus which in part was retained by the peasantry.”

The Ba’ath’s empowerment of the peasantry challenged the stakes of some of the largest landowners. Underneath that broad conflict, a struggle ensued within the Ba’ath Party from 1963 to 1970 between Hafez al-Assad and Salah Jadid. The battle between these two men is often described as one between a pragmatist (al-Assad) and an ideologue (Jadid). Indeed, Jadid’s government was likely the most radical in Syrian history, described by historian Sonoko Sunayama as “menacing pro-Western Arab regimes.”

But both men, Assad and Jadid were pragmatic when it came to internal politics. Jadid made calculations according to political necessity. In the 1960s, for instance, Jadid, then head of the Ba’ath Party, cracked down on the left-wing Armed Workers’ Battalions, which had even acted as an unofficial enforcement wing for the government during periods of political turbulence. He had tacitly allowed for the battalions’ formation only a few years prior.

The significance of Assad and Jadid’s disagreements rested in the fact that they appealed to slightly different social bases. Jadid sought to deepen socialist gains within the countryside, while Assad gained tentative support in the cities. In 1970, Assad, then defense minister of the party, launched a coup against Jadid and his loyalists. Jadid would go on to die in Syrian prison in 1993.

In the immediate aftermath of the coup, urban merchants, in an account offered by Hanna Batatu, “sent demonstrators into the streets of the big cities with banners that read: ‘We implored God for Aid—al-Madad. He sent us Hafiz al-Asad!’” The manner in which Assad came to power, and the classes he sought to buttress in order to make it happen, would prove a good predictor for the ways in which classes would ultimately shift and change under his rule.

When examined in aggregate, these conflicts — the ideological and class tensions tied into the inter-Ba’ath rifts — can offer some idea of the Syrian Ba’ath Party’s place in Middle Eastern political history. Formed against the backdrop of Pan-Arabism and popular support for the independence and postcolonial state-building that movement represented, Ba’athism was part of a progressive wave, even as it stomped out political parties more progressive than itself.

In this sense, the Syrian Arab Republic has historically embodied both the innovations and the limitations of the nation-state itself, increasing literacy rates in the countryside through centralization of political power while co-opting and repressing the more radical social movements that made literacy a priority in the first place.

The CIA at one point even backed the Ba’ath Party as part of an anticommunist push. Given that the Ba’ath Party has historically found itself in conflict with both communists and feudal landowners, and the United States supported Ba’athists against communists, it would be safe to assume the any movement the US backs against the Ba’athists would be more akin to feudal landowners, with all of the political and economic baggage that class carries.

In other words, this devolution of Syria is necessarily an objective as well as subjective, economic as well as social, material as well as ideological phenomenon. In turn, the lack of working-class participation in the state as it mediated social change through the management of capital ensured the solidification of bourgeois regimes under the Arab socialist project. Nonetheless, the military incursions of the West have historically decreased, rather than increased, working-class participation in the state.

Class

The social base for the armed insurgency in Syria arose out of a meeting point between revanchist resentment harnessed by the old bourgeoisie in the aftermath of populist land reform; the increased loss of class position for the old bourgeoisie against the creation of a financial elite; and the emergence of a poor, mostly Sunni, rural migrant class from the breakdown of the government’s social pact with the countryside.

According to Volker Perthes,

“the roots of Syria’s old bourgeoisie can be traced back to the ‘landowning bureaucratic class’ of the late Ottoman period, those influential families of local notables and Turkish officials that owned estates, and were active in commerce and government and in the religious establishment.”

Later,

“the land reform law of the United Arab Republic (uniting Syria and Egypt) struck the first blow against the old bourgeoisie, limiting its property and influence in the countryside. When the Baath took power in a 1963 coup, the new rulers, whose origins were mainly middle-class, pushed the old (socially conservative and religious) bourgeoisie out of government.”

As Bassam Haddad adds, the Syrian state under Hafez al-Assad reached out to select businessmen as a way of making inroads with old Sunni elites, a tactic that “bore political fruit in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the regime faced a revolt led by the Muslim Brothers. Asad had enacted a series of policies that harmed the interests of the Brothers’ cadre and constituents in the traditional suq(market) and other small traders and artisans.”

These alliances became doubly important as the Ba’athists implemented more policies that “caused especially profound resentment in the conservative Sunni quarters of Syrian cities” and escalated “tensions between the state and small business owners with Sunni Islamist leanings.”

This tension produced kernels of sectarianism before 2011. Quoting Haddad on changes in societal attitudes before the 1970s:

Big business, notably merchants and religious groups, was most affected [by early Ba’ath policies]. Antirural and anti-Alawi attitudes and jokes proliferated in the private popular culture of the cities, signaling the beginning of a shift in the perception of the nature of the conflict — especially from the perspective of hardliners within and outside the regime — from a class-oriented to a socio-communal conflict.

Accompanying the state-assisted creation of a new bourgeoisie, a budding business elite in Damascus and Aleppo that was dependent on the influx of international capital into nascent markets, was a breakdown of the government’s traditional pact with the countryside.

As the Syrian Center for Policy Research’s important paper “Socioeconomic Roots and Impact of the Syrian Crisis” states, “Within Syria, poverty was more concentrated in the Eastern and Northern regions, and especially in the rural areas.” The text goes on to say that reduction in arable land brought on by drought, which roughly occurred between 2006 and 2010, was a major contributor to this poverty .

Post-2011 sanctions only made matters worse for Syrian workers:

The sanctions led to a shortage in diesel and fuel gas for home use, and to surge the prices of oil derivatives by about 200 percent. Using input/output model to simulate the impact of the oil derivatives prices increase due to sanctions, the report estimated a reduction in the real GDP by 6 percent, a reduction in the private consumptions by 10.7 percent, and an increase the CPI by the same percentage. Prices increase harmed the real expenditure of the households unequally; since the negative impact on the poorest was higher than the richest . . . This increase in prices affected mainly the basic goods which formed a major part of the vulnerable and poor households’ consumptions weakening their food securities and standard of livings.

The countries that have participated in the sanctions against Syria include the US, whose first sanctions were inflicted in 2003, the European Union, Australia, Canada, and most of the Arab League. In other words, Syria has been starved by the very international community that Danny Postel calls on to save it from starvation by military force.

On account of the harsh economic realities faced by Syrians, protests broke out in 2011, primarily among the rural poor and recent migrants from rural areas to cities in the south of the country. But the protests faced a problem that never came close to any resolution: they lacked a vision and, therefore, any revolutionary agent.

Haddad, highly critical of the Syrian government, pointed this difficult reality out when he wrote an “idiot’s guide” to opposing both Assad and military intervention: “First, I must admit that the tenor of the position elaborated in [my argument] lacks a clear agency (e.g., an institution, party or movement) that might convert [the uprising] to a real and actionable path.”

The consequences of this omission has been that the imperialist forces long setting on Syria — as put by Haddad in the same article, those forces that saw “taking out Syria . . . would weaken Hizballah and isolate Iran, the big prize” — have succeeded in achieving some rather horrifying goals.

Religion

The fact that the influence of the Sunni ‘ulama has increased in Syria since the revolt of the 1980s — and it has — is not as important as the fact that the influence of Salafi and Gulf-backed rhetoric has specifically increased.

Important members of the Syrian clerical class have long held relationships with the state of Saudi Arabia, although the ‘ulama of the early twentieth century depended primarily on Syria-based private capital derived from the merchant class to fund their activities.

When the Ba’ath Party first came to power in 1963, it generated the resentment of both the merchants and the clerical classes. It was simultaneously adverse to the profits of the industrial class, which it frustrated with its nationalizations, and to the merchant-linked Sunni clerical class, which it frustrated with its steadfast secularism.

For instance, in her account of Syria-Saudi relations, Sunayama notes that the Ba’ath Party’s earliest reforms resulted in a “Syrian community in Saudi Arabia who had immigrated in thousands since the 1960s.”

These immigrants “consisted mainly of traditional landowners and entrepreneurs” who “suffered material losses” due to Ba’ath nationalization as well as political repression for their affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. These exile Syrians funded religious opposition movements in Syria through “private donations.”

One consequence of the Ba’athists’ initial refusal to incorporate preachers into its political processes was that any institutionalization of religious activity happened outside the direct control of the state.

The Ba’ath Party felt it necessary to reverse these trends later on, to incorporate a preacher class within its mainstream institutions after the late 1970s and early 1980s, after an armed uprising against the state occurred. The forces that orchestrated this uprising represented the vanguard of the right-wing attitudes, turning class tensions into sociocultural ones, operating within Syria.

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood traditionally stood as the most politically organized expression of these attitudes, but it was always but one expression, that is, one aspect of a larger political current. The activities of the Brotherhood have often overlapped with those of other conservative religious currents.

For example, Issam al-Attar, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood from 1961 to 1980, took up an expressly Salafi line of thought, which has proved highly influential in the current armed Syrian opposition ranks.

These currents are by no means interchangeable, although they have historically coordinated in Syria in anti-government campaigns.

During the period of turmoil from 1979 to 1982, the group through which ‘ulema and “lay Islamists” united, according to Thomas Pierret’s Religion and State in Syria: The Sunni Ulama from Coup to Revolution, was called the Islamic Front in Syria. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was part of this outfit, which was established in Saudi Arabia.

Eventually the Muslim Brotherhood engaged in violent confrontation with the Syrian state after events spiraled into open warfare, but the organization that headed most military operations was called the Fighting Vanguard, funded by supporters of the fundamentalist Marwan Hadid. Its first attack was carried out in June 1979, when it massacred eighty-three Alawis at Aleppo Artillery School.

These moments demonstrate that violence from the opposition in Syria did not begin in 2011. In fact, Hadid — after whom a rebel brigade that attacked Lebanon with rockets during the current strife was named — embraced selective assassination of state officials as a tactic as far back as the 1970s. This tactic reappeared in 2011. Likewise, leaders such as Adnan Sa’ad al-Din and Said Hawwa called for armed jihad against the government as early as the 1960s.

After the fighting in the early 1980s, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood increased efforts towards diplomatic relations with the state. With the outbreak of protests in 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood entered into more direct dialogue with the Western press, as its exiles played a substantial role in the SNC, formed in Turkey, along with liberals with an opportunist attitude towards the Muslim Brotherhood.

While the Muslim Brotherhood was slowly modifying its own role in Syrian politics, the influence of the Salafis within both Syria and the larger the Middle East quietly increased.

The growing capitalist economic base of Syria contributed to the creation of an internally displaced  Sunni population that was in some quarters receptive to a Salafi ideology as a reaction to what Haddad describes as Syria’s “socialist-nationalist superstructure.”

This reactionary ideology, which claims itself “true Islam,” achieves stark expression whenever ISIS fighters burn Palestinian flags for the supposedly “un-Islamic” nature of Palestinian nationalism.

This ideology was distributed by, in the words of Pierret, “the spread of Egyptian Salafi journals… Wahhabi proselytizing through Syrian-Saudi trade networks . . .” As Pierret writes: “Now more than after, it has become impossible to seal [Syria] against the vehicles of Salafi conceptions — in particular, migrants returning from the Gulf and mass media such as the Internet and satellite channels.”

And so the available evidence suggests that as the conservative Muslim Brotherhood delved further into traditional politics, more reactionary elements were making gains on the ground, or, in the words of Pierret, “at the grassroots level.”

Some of those gains were militaristic in nature. When armed operations against the Syrian state finally caught the attention of Western media in 2011, they were carried out under a catchall title of “Free Syrian Army.”

The politics of those early brigades remain murky. As far as the FSA was an actual organized force, as the armed wing of the SNC, it failed to proclaim much of a political program beyond its promise to kill Bashar al-Assad in a manner reminiscent of the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya (along with its calls for foreign assistance, even as it operated within Southern Turkey).

Now it barely exists — and is more of an idea or umbrella heading than an actual organization. Among those groups that have replaced it in influence is the Nusra Front, formed in January 2012, which began as a branch of the FSA.

The bigotries of this social base gained more teeth from outside forces seeking to capitalize on internal divisions within the country. The reason why imperialists are willing to supply these forces is clear. As Amal Saad-Ghorayeb writes in Hizbu’llah: Politics and Religion, they “view their local regimes as their immediate enemy,” in contrast to, say, Hezbollah, which “perceives Israel as the much greater threat.”

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States worked in conjunction to flood the country with guns, widen the specter of war, and halt the development of a country governed by an unreliable regime.

If it is true that Syria became a conduit for international finance and contained for a time a growing capitalist economic base, the question arises of what exactly makes it “unreliable” to imperialist powers . The answer lies, naturally, at both the levels of economics and politics.

In 2011, the encroachment of international finance capital into Syria was not complete. Haddad writes that “the lack of trust between the regime and the business community, based on deep-seated historical antagonisms,” prevented the kind of total union between the two interests that had come together in Middle East states such as Egypt.

This antagonism would allow for the Syrian government to honor at least some of its populist promises in ways that were not true of other Arab states. Among those promises is the cause of Arab resistance to Zionism and imperialism. For this reason Syria funded Hezbollah, a Lebanese guerilla army that proved in 2006 to be Israel’s most formidable military enemy in history.

The whole of these outside countries’ investment in the destruction of Syria can quite plainly be called imperialism. The Syria Dilemma, with all of its invocations of intervention, never approximates an analysis of imperialism.

If intervention is cautioned against, it is only because it will not succeed in stopping the bloodshed or because the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan ended up disastrous. Intervention is opposed on pragmatic or cost-benefit grounds. The right of the United States to determine the affairs of others is never questioned.

What Can Be Done?

Here is the latest news, as of this writing. Israel bombs Syria in repeated attempts to disrupt the organizational capacity of the Lebanese resistance movementHezbollah, which finds itself engaged in struggle against jihadists of the Syrian opposition.

Reports have emerged that Israel is coordinating with rebels and even operating within and around occupied Golan Heights under a tacit pact with al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra in an anti-Hezbollah push. In fact, the night the United States began bombing Syria, ostensibly to “degrade and destroy” ISIS, Israel downed a Syrian fighter jet using US-supplied Patriot missiles.

Israel’s activities in Syria have reignited tensions around an often neglected aspect of Israeli occupation — its military rule in southeastern Syria. In January 2015, Israel assassinated Hezbollah and Iranian commanders in Syria, rupturing the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement signed between Israel and Syria.

Hezbollah has responded by trying to formulate a military resistance against Israel in southern Syria. Israel, grounded as it is in settler-colonialism, will look to extending its grip in the Golan Heights and possibly even to expanding — perhaps with the protection of the Druze community in Golan from its own rebel proxies as a justification.

In the northern end of the country, Turkey withheld full cooperation with the US during the latter’s bombing of ISIS approaching Syrian Kurdistan in February 2015. The US, in addition to dropping bombs, dropped aid finding its way both into the hands of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the fighting unit of the PYD, as well as ISIS.

Since that period, evidence has mounted of Turkey allowing ISIS fighters to flow into Syria while it cracks down on cross-border exchanges of men and supplies between Kurdish fighters and their non-Kurdish leftist comrades. This policy is in line with Erdogan’s expressed fears of what he calls the Kurdish “terrorists” of the YPG as it makes gains on ISIS in the border town of Tal Abyad.

Turkey’s policy of supporting armed revanchists in the Syrian war is long-standing: last year, documents revealed that Turkey assisted al-Qaeda organizations in their takeover of the predominantly Armenian town of Kessab.

This direct intervention, from the bombs to the aid, should be understood as a strategy for war that is, in effect, against Syrian society as a whole, though it is in aim a war against the Syrian Arab Republic.

These intentions continue to be made clear, even as the US bombs enemies of the Syrian state, for the US’s plan for bombing those enemies involves the training of more “anti-Assad” rebels in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Not to mention, the US continues to make noise about the possibility of a no-fly zone in Northern Syria, which would require a defeat of Syrian air defense systems.

The implementation of such a plan would require compromise between the US and Turkey on the Kurdish question. Both parties will push to sever Kurdish leadership in Syria from the leftist Kurdish PKK in Turkey. If the PYD’s radicalism is sufficiently hollowed out, it is not at all outside the realm of possibility that NATO-aligned powers use the Kurdish movement to establish a military and economic base in Northern Syria, as they did in Iraq.

Alternatively, if the Syrian Army is destroyed, Rojava will be easily overrun by armed Salafi movements — a scenario the US could use to try to justify a military protectorate in Syria. Every such imperial contingency plan should be opposed.

With these developments in mind, it becomes clear that the war in Syria exists on two levels that interact with each other. There is a civil war based on divides between Syrians professing differing ideas for the future of the country. Then there is the imperial war on Syria designed to bring local social struggle to a screeching halt, and without the war on Syria, the civil war would never have got going.

The class basis for the armed insurgency has existed for a while now; the critical difference since 2011 has been the investments of empire.

To call these events “revolutionary,” rather than a set of depressing steps backward, is to insult the intelligence and integrity of anyone who prefers that word mean something. And it prevents an understanding of what should be done — the question of what to do is actually a question of what not to do, or what to cease doing. For local struggle of any kind to be restored, the US and its allies must stop what they have been doing proxy-style — arming reserve forces in the region — since at least 2011.

If the supplies to anti-government fighters can be cut off in Syria, negotiations for a political solution will be more meaningful. Leftists could actually find themselves in a position to agitate for the reforms demanded in 2011: more representation in government, deep political reform and civil rights, a negotiated settlement with the Syrian state for Kurdish political autonomy that maintains the current movement’s secularism and socialist economic program, and a renewed development pact between the state and the countryside that will, hopefully, serve to cut off support for reactionary movements.

In the United States, our main focus must be struggling against the intervention of our own government, drawing links between its actions in Syria and its broader agenda elsewhere.

Of course, such a solution cannot begin to recompense the heart-shattering extent of pain and loss Syria has experienced. The fact that such a solution is so devastatingly belated only adds to its urgency.

Towards these ends, the Western left shall be stuck with the tedious task of untangling the logic of amnesiac little books and Beltway policy papers discussing the carve-up of distant nations as if it were a trivial matter.

And the task does not end there. The Syria dilemma provides a lesson to the Western left. In a society run on marketing, the Left’s own words, such as “revolution,” can easily be gutted of all content, so all that remains is a rush, a haze, a feeling. Images of triumphant demonstrators may mingle seamlessly with images of corpses, the spectacle flitting past like a ticker tape, billed in its totality as the news from Over There.

If those dubbing this spectacle a “revolution” happen to be capitalists, think twice — consider that these events might look much differently after the smoke clears. Think three times if the alleged culprit is a nominal enemy of the United States.

The obligation goes well beyond opposing intervention in name; it requires extreme skepticism at all times of official narratives to be able to unearth intervention as it actually and already exists. In other words, act as an actual anti-imperialist.

The Saudi-led, US-backed assault on Yemen, now entering its sixth month, continues to take a devastating toll on the country’s civilian population. At least 36 workers were reported killed Sunday after a Saudi-led coalition jet fighter bombed a water -bottling factory in the Abs District of Hajjah Governorate.

Local residents said that dozens of workers had been killed and reported pulling charred remains from the rubble of the plant. “The process of recovering the bodies is finished now. The corpses of 36 workers, many of them burnt or in pieces, were pulled out after an air strike hit the plant this morning,” Hajjah resident Issah Ahmed told Reuters in a phone interview.

This bloody war crime was the latest in a string of airstrikes that have resulted in mass civilian casualties in the Saudi-spearheaded war against the Houthi militias and allied forces. A bombing raid on a dairy and juicing factory in the western port city of Hodeida in April killed at least 37 workers and injured 80 others. Since the anti-Houthi offensive began in March, more than 4,300 have been killed, at least half of them civilians.

Residential neighborhoods, factories, ports, schools, hospitals and markets have all been the targets of Saudi-led bombing raids as the coalition, fully backed by the US government, seeks to bring President Abd Rabbuh Monsour Hadi back to power.

Amnesty International released a report last month which documented potential “war crimes, by all parties,” including coalition bombing raids on a school being used as a shelter, a food market and a workers’ dormitory.

With the support of military forces loyal to former dictator Ali Abduallah Saleh, the Houthi militias consolidated control over much of Yemen’s western provinces in March, including the southern port city of Aden. They forced Hadi to flee the country for Saudi Arabia, where he established a government-in-exile. The Saudis have charged that Iran is backing the Houthis, though Iran has denied providing military equipment.

Facilitated by US military intelligence, logistical support and air tankers to refuel jets, the campaign of nearly continuous airstrikes has been supplemented in recent weeks by a growing ground invasion involving troops from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia as well as Yemeni forces trained by the Saudis.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that troops from the UAE have been secretly leading the fight in southern Yemen since late July. Nearly 100 UAE troops with unmarked armored vehicles were deployed in Aden and have played a key role in pushing the Houthis out of the city.

The coalition is reportedly preparing a bloodbath in northern Yemen by setting up a three-pronged assault from Saada province in the north, Marib province in the east and Jawf province in the northeast. Several thousand UAE and Saudi forces, along with battle tanks and other armored vehicles, have already been deployed inside Yemen.

The Saudi coalition is reportedly calculating that a successful assault on the Houthi stronghold of Saada would deal a fatal blow to the anti-Hadi forces and would facilitate the recapture of Sanaa.

Over the last week, Saudi coalition ground forces have also begun entering Yemen from the northeast and have reached the oil-rich Marib province, which provides Sanaa with electricity and fuel. It is also adjacent to the Al Jawf Governorate, where Houthi forces have reportedly set up trenches and planted mines in preparation for a ground battle.

The Saudi-backed Asharq Al Awsat reported on Monday that Saudi-led ground forces have initiated the third prong of the ground invasion, moving troops into Saada province. The troops have entrenched in tribal areas outside of the city of Saada, while Saudi planes have been dropping leaflets encouraging residents to support the reinstatement of the Hadi government.

The UN and other humanitarian groups have released repeated statements over the last five months warning of a dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen as a result of the unrelenting aerial assault and blockade of the country. The UN envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, warned in June that the country was “one step away from famine.”

More than a million people have been displaced by the fighting. Approximately 21 million people, or 80 percent of the total population, lack access to clean drinking water and are in need of some additional form of humanitarian aid.

International charity Save the Children warned on Sunday that Al Sabeen Hospital, the main women and children’s hospital in Sanaa, is faced with imminent closure due to a shortage of medical supplies and fuel for power generators. The hospital has already run out of IV fluid and ready-made food for malnourished children.

“The situation is absolutely critical. We don’t have time to wait for stocks and fuel to come in. If this hospital closes, children and women will die,” the hospital’s deputy manager, Halel Al Bahri, told Save the Children. “The numbers of those who die will be much higher than those being killed by the bombs and the fighting.”

Since the Saudi-led assault began earlier this year, the number of people in Yemen who lack access to basic health care has increased by 40 percent to 15.2 million. The number of children admitted to Yemeni hospitals for malnutrition since March has skyrocketed by 150 percent. It is estimated that more than half a million children will suffer from severe acute malnutrition by the end of the year.

A self-declared Israeli Sanhedrin, a religious High Court composed of 71 sages, has demanded that Pope Francis apologise for recognising a separate Palestinian state or face trial next month.

A member of the Palestinian Al-Fatah movement revolutionary council, Demetri Deliani, said the Jewish court has sent a letter to Pope Francis demanding he rescind or face trial on 20 September, and that he will be judged in absentia if he chooses to ignore the summons.

The Vatican officially recognised the State of Palestine in February 2013.

In June, the Holy See switched its diplomatic relations from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation to “the state of Palestine” in a treaty that constitutes the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state.

Deliani said the Sanhedrin’s letter included many false claims about the history of Palestine and seeks to rob the Palestinian people of their natural rights in their homeland and to deny non-Jews of any rights.

He warned that although the court does not have any legal status, it is troubling that this level of ideological extremism emerges from rabbis who have a significant impact on the Israeli government and its coalition parties.

The letter was signed by the Secretariat of the Court of Mount Zion, including Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Rabbi Dov Levanoni, Rabbi Israel Ariel, Rabbi Daniel Stavsky, Rabbi Yehuda Edri, and Rabbi Dov Meir Shtein.

The Israeli government has not commented on the letter.

Deliani called on the Vatican and Catholic churches around the world to intervene and put an end to Israeli “arrogance, racism and violations” against the Palestinian people and their land.

Source: Felesteen, 30 August, 2015, translated from Arabic

New Jersey Governor and Republican presidential hopeful Chris Christie proposed over the weekend that Washington institute a system of control over foreigners entering the country akin to the methods used by the express shipping company Fedex to track its packages. This Orwellian scheme, evoking the branding and police-state hounding of everyone visiting the US, is one more contribution to a 2016 US presidential debate that expresses complete contempt for democratic rights and a seething hatred within ruling circles for workers of every nationality.

Christie’s appeal to anti-immigrant chauvinism and xenophobia came in the same week that his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, raised the need for not only sealing off the US southern border with Mexico, but constructing a wall along the 5,525-mile-long border with Canada to the north.

Meanwhile, a phony furor has been whipped up over the use by both Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, a candidate for the Republican nomination, of the word “boxcar” in referring to proposals for the mass deportation of over 11 million undocumented immigrants who live and work in the US. Clinton’s press aide was compelled to issue a statement affirming that she did not intend any allusion to the trains the Nazis used to send Jews to Auschwitz and other death camps.

This strained disavowal only draws attention to the fact that campaign stump speeches in the US in 2015 are echoing the rhetoric of 1930s-style fascism.

Donald Trump, the bloated, bullying billionaire and current Republican front-runner, has set the tone for this rabid scapegoating of immigrant workers. Slandering immigrants, who do the most grinding and ill-paid work, from the agricultural fields to the slaughterhouses, as “rapists” and “murderers,” Trump has demanded that they be rounded up and deported en masse.

He also advocates the building of a wall along the US-Mexican border—paid for by seizing the remittances sent by immigrants working in the US to support their families—and the revocation of citizenship for immigrants’ children born on US soil.

This last measure has either been endorsed or sidestepped by virtually the entire Republican pack. Jeb Bush, who has attacked Trump’s plan based on its cost rather than its gross inhumanity, vowed that his own plan would effectively seal the border “so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”

With all of the arrogance, raw prejudice and stupidity that he brings to every subject, Trump has described the citizenship of these children as “illegal.”

In reality, citizenship rights for everyone born in the US, no matter what the status of their parents, has stood as a foundation of American bourgeois democracy for nearly a century and a half. Enshrined in the 14th Amendment, this right was a product of the Civil War and the overturning of the Supreme Court’s hated Dred Scott decision of 1857, which found that African-Americans were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The first sentence of the first section of this article of the US Constitution, establishing the bedrock for the assertion of equal rights, reads: “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The determination of citizenship based on “soil,” or place of birth, rather than “blood,” or the nationality of one’s parents, was rooted in the principles of the American and French Revolutions and was what distinguished the US from Europe’s old monarchies and empires.

Attempts by the Democratic presidential candidates to exploit the Republicans’ anti-immigrant tirade for their own electoral purposes are as hollow as they are hypocritical.

In her speech last week to the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton denounced the Republicans for saying “hateful things about immigrants and their babies,” while her contender for the presidential nomination, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, insisted that the symbol of the US must be “the Statue of Liberty, not a barbed wire fence.”

In the real world, however, both support the current Democratic administration, which has driven deportations to record levels, expelling close to 3 million undocumented immigrants since Obama came to office promising immigration reform within 100 days. This deportation rate is nine times higher than 20 years ago.

Over the course of the past month, the administration has sent its lawyers into federal court to defend an illegal and inhuman system of jailing behind barbed wire fences thousands of children and their mothers who fled to the US to escape rampant violence in Central America.

The White House and Department of Homeland Security want to maintain this system, which reproduces the methods of Guantanamo and is described by some who worked in it as tantamount to torture. It is a means of deterring others from attempting to flee the horrific conditions created by decades of US-backed dictatorships, dirty wars and military coups, and of denying those who reach the US border their right to asylum.

The rhetoric of the Republicans and the deeds of the Democratic administration are of a piece with the attempts by governments across the Atlantic to erect a “Fortress Europe” to repel by force the hundreds of thousands of defenseless refugees fleeing for their lives from the devastation and bloodshed wrought by the succession of US-led wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. On both continents, the mistreatment and witch-hunting of immigrants is one of the rawest and most tragic expressions of the incompatibility of world economy with the outmoded and reactionary capitalist nation-state system.

Capitalism can provide no answer to the reality of mass global migration outside of violent repression, detention camps and mass deportations. The big-business politicians and media attempt to generate support for these odious methods by scapegoating immigrants for the loss of jobs, wages and vital social services that are produced by the crisis of the profit system.

These claims, made by candidates ranging from Trump to the Democratic “socialist” Bernie Sanders, are deserving only of contempt. There are resources to provide for all—native born and immigrant alike—but they are monopolized by a financial oligarchy that has enriched itself off of the destruction of the living standards of working people.

The defense of the democratic right of immigration and opposition to the police-state measures advocated by Trump and employed by Obama is a vital task of the working class as a whole, which is the ultimate target of the methods being honed in the crusade against immigrant workers.

Destabilization of Africa, the Middle East and Asia prompts millions to flee

There was yet another gruesome discovery of over 70 dead migrants in Austria on a highway between Budapest and Vienna where thousands are seeking refuge. These deaths compounded approximately 100 others who died after their vessel capsized in route to Europe.

Inside the truck in Austria people had apparently suffocated while being illegally transported from the Mediterranean into Southern and Eastern Europe.

Austrian governmental officials announced on August 28 that 71 refugees, including an infant girl, were found dead in what appeared to be an abandoned freezer truck.  During the same day Libyan naval units recovered the bodies of 105 migrants who were washed ashore apparently after an overcrowded boat capsized in the Mediterranean Sea on its way to Europe.

These deaths are occurring due an upsurge in migrants running away from war and poverty that has been initiated by United States and European Union foreign policies.  United Nations officials and other international agencies concerned with migration have reported since last year that the number of internally displaced persons and refugees are higher today than any period since the conclusion of World War II.

The International Organization for Migration has revealed that over 330,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean so far this year. Consequently, the number deaths are ranging in the thousands and there no reasons to believe that more of these tragedies will not occur in the short term.

Impact of Imperialist Wars Span Several Continents

These recent mass deaths are by no means isolated incidents. A pattern of dislocation has been rising steadily since the wars of regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Libya and Nigeria from 2001 until the present.

Also the growing class divisions and economic difficulties in other Asian and African states are creating tensions which foster migration. Some of the states which are impacted by this global crisis include Morocco in North Africa, Nigeria in West Africa and Bangladesh in South Asia.

When the U.S. and its NATO allies went to war against the Taliban government in Afghanistan they claimed that it was designed to end “terrorism” and ensure stability in Central Asia.

However, some fourteen years later hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives in both Afghanistan and Pakistan with many more leaving the country as a result of the ongoing fighting between forces in support and in opposition to the Washington-imposed regime in Kabul.

Going back over 35 years, the U.S. waged a war against the socialist-oriented government in Afghanistan that was supported by the-then Soviet Union. Washington funded, trained and coordinated Islamic fighters which led to the formation of al-Qaeda and the eventual ascendancy of the Taliban between the late 1970s up until the 1990s.

In Iraq beginning with the military build-up and invasion during 2002-2003, some estimates claim that over one million people have died. War still rages between the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Iraqi government in Baghdad causing a new wave of outmigration.

Both Syria and Libya were targeted for regime-change in 2011 through the support of pro-western groups, militias and massive bombing campaigns. Over four million Syrians have left the country many of whom are now seeking refuge in Europe.

The situation in the Horn of Africa is largely the result of successive U.S. administrations meddling in the affairs of the region. Somalia has been a major source for Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interventions since the late 1970s when the administration of Jimmy Carter won over the regime of Mohamed Siad Barre and encouraged it to invade Ethiopia which was undergoing a socialist revolution supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Coinciding with the weakening of the USSR, the regime of Mikhail Gorbachev halted support for the Ethiopian government of Mengistu Haile Miriam. After the overthrow of the Workers Party state in Addis Ababa in 1991, the U.S. the following year invaded and occupied Somalia under the guise of a humanitarian mission.

Somalians rose up against the occupation in 1993 prompting a withdrawal by the Pentagon and the United Nations peacekeeping forces. Nonetheless, Washington would continue to seek domination of Somalia through an invasion by the current western-oriented regime in Ethiopia in 2006 and the formation of a regional African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) 22,000-member military force now operating inside the country.

All of these geo-political regions have their nationals being lured by human traffickers across borders in Asia, the Middle East and Africa with the promise of prosperity in Europe. However, Europe itself has serious economic crisis particularly in southern states such as Greece.

EU Divided Over Migrant Crisis

These deaths of migrants totaling nearly 3,000 this year, poses a problem for the EU due to the financial instability inside the imperialist states. Many migrants have entered Greece where the most serious economic downturn has taken place leaving millions in poverty and uncertainty stemming from the U.S. as well as Northern and Western European capitalist states’ terms of loan repayments and imposed economic conditionalities.

Italy has experienced a large wave of migration in recent months. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) says that over 65 percent of the people seeking entry into Europe this year have crossed over into Greece and Italy.  (Reuters, August 28)

The International Business Times reported on August 30 that recent migrants are being trafficked heavily through the Balkans.

An article from this publication says “Investigations will likely focus on the Balkans region, which has now reportedly become the primary route for people-smuggling gangs transporting migrants and refugees from the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia into Western Europe. Between January and July this year, 102,342 people crossed into Austria via the western Balkans, more than 10,000 higher than the total which entered Europe via the so-called ‘Central Mediterranean’ route, according to data from Frontex, the EU border control agency.”

In a recent Washington Post analysis of the crisis written by Anthony Failoa and Michael Birnbaum, they acknowledge the criticism of the EU system for its failure to develop a sound and rational immigration policy. Earlier in June, the regional organization sought to handle the burgeoning migration into Europe through military means by halting, boarding and returning vessels where migrants were being transported.

The Washington Post authors say “Perhaps nowhere is that more true than in Hungary, the nation the perished migrants were smuggled through. This former Soviet bloc country, now led by right-wing nationalists, is fast emerging as the toughest obstacle for a record number of refugees trying to reach Europe from war-torn Syria, Iraq and other nations.” (August 31)

This same report continues noting that “Hungary is building a 109-mile-long razor-wire fence on its southern border meant to keep out migrants. But as they come ashore in Greece, then try to reach the wealthy core of Europe – nations such as Germany, Sweden and Austria – the asylum-seekers’ path to sanctuary runs straight through Hungary.”

Although Germany is portraying a more humane posture related to the latest migrant crisis they are not burdened with the same problems as the lesser developed states on the continent. The EU states have failed to agree on a uniform policy of quotas and methods of processing migrants.

“The problem is that the European system is dysfunctional, and when a system is dysfunctional, refugees are going to put themselves in danger,” according to Babar Baloch, the spokesman for UN High Commission for Refugees in Budapest. “Especially in Hungary, they are being pushed to take risks because they have no other legal way.” (Washington Post, August 31)

Ignore demagogues like Donald Trump claiming “China is taking our jobs…taking our money…They’ll take us down.”

Gerald Celente issued a “trend alert” headlined “Market Mayhem: Don’t blame China – It’s the (global) economy, stupid.”

China is far from blame-free. Celente calls its economy “the canary in the collapsing global-equity mine.” He forecasts markets plummeting by yearend. Chickens are coming home to roost.

Current market turbulence is “more than a…correction,” he stresses. “It’s a global recession” – how severe remains to be seen.

The influential right-wing Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) supports anti-populist policies across-the-board – including deregulation, money printing madness, anti-consumer trade deals, near-zero interest rates, and gutting vital social justice programs.

Nicholas Lardy is a senior PIIE fellow. The New York Times featured his op-ed headlined “False Alarm on a Crisis in China,” saying:

There is little evidence that China’s economy is slowing significantly from the 7 percent pace reported by the government for the first part of the year.

Other market analysts estimate it at 4% or less. It’s reported economic numbers are inflated. Still, it’s growing much faster than stagnating US and EU economies.

Official July figures showed slowing industrial production and fixed asset investment, as well as sharply declining exports. Expect Shanghai Composite plummeting valuations to have a negative effect on consumer spending, weighing on private sector investment and economic growth.

Its equity market bubble may experience lots more deflating ahead – affecting other financial markets globally. Plummeting commodity prices reflect slowing growth.

China is the world’s second largest economy – the largest based on purchasing power parity. It’s an engine of global growth. Its economy and financial markets matter.

Whether they’ll experience crisis conditions remains to be seen. Given the fragility of global economies after years of excess, China may face economic and financial trouble for the first time in decades.

The Shanghai Composite remains in bubble territory after around a 40% selloff – followed Thursday by what appears to be a dead-cat bounce. In the 12-month period ending June 2015, equity valuations soared over 150%. Retrenching so far may not be enough to reverse imbalances.

Lardy claims market weakness doesn’t reflect “a sell-off in the fundamentals of the Chinese economy.” He believes it “may strengthen those fundamentals…”

Investor/author of “The Next Economic Disaster,” Richard Vague headlined a spring 2015 article “The Coming China Crisis,” calling “the great panic of China…in full swing.”

Its economy “fueled by runaway lending…produced far more housing, steel, iron, and a host of other goods than it knows what to do with, amassing unprecedented levels of overcapacity and, by my estimate, making a staggering $2-$3 trillion in problem loans in the process” Vague explained.

The main post-2008 crash engine of growth “is rapidly diminishing and will soon largely end. The only question is how.” Its bad debt problem is “unprecedented.”

America’s economy was hammered by a similar problem from fall 2007 to March 2009. Forecasts didn’t predict what lay ahead – or maybe a worse storm brewing now.

Vague says China’s current problem bears eerie resemblance to America’s 2008 private debt crisis and Japan’s in 1991 – after the Nikkei stock market index peaked on 1989’s last trading day.

China’s ratio of private debt to GDP exceeds 200%. It’s total debt ratio tops 280%. It “amassed the largest buildup of bad debt (and overcapacity) in history,” said Vague.

“Overcapacity is so significant in many sectors that it will take years for it to be absorbed by organic demand.” Millions of homes remain vacant. Housing represents about 20% of China’s economy. Its private sector is “massively over-leveraged.”

Its growth has been declining for years – “perhaps to a level approaching zero – and China will be left facing a ‘lost’ generation of very low growth similar to the last 20 years in Japan.”

Whether financial and economic contagion follows (and how severe) remains to be seen. Current global conditions may signal a major inflection point indicating significant trouble yet to unfold.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

As Saudi ground troops enter Northern Yemen with US backing, Amnesty International charges Saudis with alleged war crimes 

Transcript

SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.

On Thursday, Saudi troops crossed into northern Yemen for the first time since the beginning of the conflict. The Saudi-led coalition continues to launch air strikes on Houthi rebel positions, and Human Rights Watch has called on the coalition to stop using cluster bombs because they are contributing to the high civilian death toll. According to the UN more than 4,300 people have been killed in this conflict since March.

Now joining us to address all of this is Vijay Prashad. He’s the George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History and professor of international studies at Trinity College. He’s the author of many books, including his latest titled Letters to Palestine. Vijay, thank you again for joining us.

VIJAY PRASHAD: Pleasure, thank you.

PERIES: Vijay, start by talking about the significance of the ground troops in Yemen.

PRASHAD: The amazing thing about Yemen is this extraordinarily brutal conflict has been going on, 4,300, maybe more people have died in this conflict. Both sides you might say, in fact there are not only two sides to this conflict. There are many sides to it. All sides have been ruthless in their use of force, not only against each other but against civilian areas. The carnage has reached a point where the United Nations has at several points said that famine conditions have either broken out or are likely. UNICEF has warned on a number of occasions about the use of force against children. Hundreds of children dead, perhaps 600. infrastructure has been destroyed.

Ashton Carter, the U.S. secretary of defense, as early as April warned that the war between the Saudis, the Houthis, Mr. Saleh’s troops, Hadi’s troops, et cetera, have only succeeded in opening the door for expansion of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, which anyway held quite large sections of territory in southern Yemen.

So given all this it’s remarkable that the press has basically stayed away. There’s been very little coverage of what’s been happening. And you know, here is a situation where after months of aerial bombardment the Saudi ground forces leave the southern Saudi province of Jizan, enter north Yemen, and so little is made of it. It’s not clear yet whether their entry into north Yemen is merely to take out some of the rocket positions that have been used by the Houthis to fire into Saudi Arabia, or if indeed the Saudis intend for this to be a push to the Yemeni capital of Sana’a. In the southern part of Yemen the rebels have faced some opposition from the forces of Mansur al-Hadi. In the city of [inaud.] for instance there’s been a pushback against the rebels. So it’s not clear what the Saudis are up to. Are they merely coming in to clean up the border, or do they intend to go all the way to Sana’a.

PERIES: And Vijay, what’s the role of the United States? Often when we see this term, the Saudi-led coalition, the U.S. sounds silent in the process. But what is their role?

PRASHAD: Well, Saudi Arabia is a very important ally of the United States. It is in fact as important an ally as Israel is in the region. The behavior of the United States toward Saudi Arabia in this conflict against Yemen is eerily like the behavior of the United States towards Israel when Israel bombs Gaza. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita incomes in the Arab world. Not the highest. That belongs, I think, to Qatar. But one of the highest. And Yemen is certainly the poorest of all the Arab countries.

And so it’s facing asymmetrical bombardment. Whatever the rebels are doing is not being done from the air. The Saudis command the air and they’re bombing the whole country. In the same way, the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza is utterly asymmetrical. The Israelis command the air, and all that can happen from Gaza is some minor rocket attacks into Israel. It’s comparatively nothing.

In both cases the United States, during the conflict, has resupplied the superior side. In the case of Israel the United States, in the middle of the bombardment of Gaza, resupplied Israel. In this case in the middle of this conflict, which Amnesty International has said that the Saudis are committing alleged war crimes, in the middle of all this the United States has resupplied Saudi Arabia with the very weapons they’re using against the Yemeni people.

So just as with Israel, they are supplying them during the war. And similarly in both cases the United States is providing diplomatic cover. In the one case for Israel in its war against Gaza. In this case Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen. Amnesty International has called for a UN Human Rights Council Commission inquiry of potential war crimes against the Yemeni people. It’s unlikely that the Americans are going to allow this commission of inquiry to be set up without a lot of pressure on the countries in the Human Rights Council.

So the American hand in this conflict is considerable. As considerable as it has been in each of the Israeli bombings of Gaza.

PERIES: Vijay Prashad, I thank you so much for joining us today on such short notice on this particular issue, and as always we are very happy to have you here.

PRASHAD: Thanks a lot.

PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History and Professor of International Studies at Trinity College. He is the author of sixteen books, including The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013), Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK, 2012), (co-edited with Paul Amar) Dispatches from the Arab Spring (2013), and No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (Leftward Press, 2015). Vijay’s latest book is Letters to Palestine: Writers Respond to War and Occupation. Vijay is the chief editor at Leftward Press, and writes regularly for The Hindu, Frontline, Jadaliyya, Counterpunch, Himal and Bol.

Ukraine is hosting naval military exercise in the Black Sea with NATO forces, involving 2,500 troops and some 150 military vehicles, from warships and helicopters to armored cars.

The host nation of Sea Breeze 2015 has deployed 1,000 troops, nine warships and eight aircraft for the drill. The US has sent 1,000 troops as well as five warships, two submarines and six aircraft.

The remaining 500 troops, six warships, three submarines and 6six aircraft were provided by Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Romania, Turkey, the UK and the non-NATO nations Moldova and Sweden.

“The exercise is meant to boost trust and security in the region, [and to increase] the compatibility between the Ukrainian Navy and the navies of NATO members and partner countries,” the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Sea Breeze is held in Ukraine’s Odessa and Nikolaevsk region not far from Russia’s Crimea, which Kiev and its foreign sponsors consider to be Ukrainian. It will last till mid-September. Ukraine will participating in a total of 11 NATO drills in 2015.

NATO is also currently conducting another war game, called Swift Response, in Germany, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania. It is one of the largest such events since the Cold War and is planned to last until September 13. A separate exercise, called Simple Strike, is under way in the Baltic.

Russia, which calls NATO exercises in Europe provocative, has just completed a joint naval drill with China, called Naval Cooperation. It was held in the Far East and has been described as unprecedented in scale.

LISTEN MORE:

No airstrikes against 60 camps producing 1,000 fighters monthly 

The Pentagon has not conducted airstrikes against an estimated 60 Islamic State (IS) training camps that are supplying thousands of fighters each month to the terror group, according to defense and intelligence officials.

The camps are spread throughout Islamic State-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria and are off limits in the U.S.-led international bombing campaign because of concerns about collateral damage, said officials familiar with planning and execution of the yearlong bombing campaign.

Additionally, the IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) camps have been so successful that Islamic State leaders are considering expanding the camps to Libya and Yemen. Both states have become largely ungoverned areas in recent years.

The failure to target the training camps with U.S. and allied airstrikes is raising questions among some defense and intelligence officials about the commitment of President Obama and his senior aides to the current anti-IS strategy of degrading and ultimately destroying the terror group.

“If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?” one official critical of the policy asked.

The camps are regarded by U.S. intelligence analysts as a key element in the terror group’s successes in holding and taking new territory. The main benefit of the training camps is that they are providing a continuous supply of new fighters.

An additional worry of intelligence analysts is that some of the foreign fighters being trained in the camps will eventually return to their home countries in Europe and North America to carry out terror attacks.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the failure to bomb the terror camps and referred questions to the Pentagon.

Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger M. Cabiness declined to say why no training camps have been bombed. “I am not going to be able to go into detail about our targeting process,” he said.

Cabiness said the U.S.-led coalition has “hit ISIL [an alternative abbreviation for the Islamic State] with more than 6,000 airstrikes.”

“The coalition has also taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps,” he said. “We have also stuck their leadership, including most recently on Aug. 18 when a U.S. military airstrike removed Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group, from the battlefield.”

Efforts also are being taken to disrupt IS finances and “make it more difficult for the group to attract new foreign fighters,” Cabiness said in an email.

Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said the coalition has conducted 19 airstrikes against training areas, the most recent on Aug. 5. The Central Command’s news release for that day, however, makes no reference to a training camp being struck in airstrikes. A July 30 release states that training areas were hit.

According to the Command’s website, a total of 6,419 airstrikes have been carried out over the past year, 3,991 in Iraq, and 2,428 Syria, indicating .3 percent of the airstrikes were carried out against training areas.

“Whenever we identify ISIL moving, staging, operating or training in any number, target them and strike them,” Ryder said. “As a result, ISIL is not longer able to move freely or train openly for fear of being hit.”

As a result of the air campaign, ISIL has begun “hiding amongst civilian populations and employing terrorist weapons from entrenched, defensive hiding places,” Ryder said, adding, “regardless, the coalition can and will continue to identify, pursue and strike them relentlessly.”

According to the defense and intelligence officials, one reason the training camps have been off limits is that political leaders in the White House and Pentagon fear hitting them will cause collateral damage. Some of the camps are located near civilian facilities and there are concerns that casualties will inspire more jihadists to join the group.

However, military officials have argued that unless the training camps are knocked out, IS will continue to gain ground and recruit and train more fighters for its operations.

Disclosure that the IS training camps are effectively off limits to the bombing campaign comes as intelligence officials in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of the conflict, have alleged that senior U.S. officials skewed intelligence reports indicating the U.S. strategy against IS is not working or has been less effective than officials have claimed in public.

The Islamic State controls large parts of Syria and Iraq and has attracted tens of thousands of jihadists in both countries and from abroad. The exact number of fighters is not known but intelligence estimates have indicated the numbers have increased over the past year.

The military campaign, known as Operation Inherent Resolve, appears to be floundering despite a yearlong campaign of airstrikes and military training programs aimed to bolstering Iraqi military forces.

A review of Central Command reports on airstrikes since last year reveals that few attacks were carried out against training camps.

Targets instead included Islamic State vehicles, buildings, tactical units, arms caches, fighting positions, snipers, excavators, mortar and machine gun positions, bunkers, and bomb factories.

The risk-averse nature of the airstrike campaign was highlighted last month by Brig. Gen. Thomas Weidley, chief of staff for what the military calls Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.

“The coalition continues to use air power responsibly,” Weidley said July 1. “Highly precise deliveries, detailed weaponeering, in-depth target development, collateral damage mitigation, and maximized effects on Daesh, are characteristics of coalition airstrike operation in Iraq and Syria.”

Daesh is another name for the Islamic State.

“The coalition targeting process minimizes collateral damage and maximizes precise effects on Daesh,” Weidley said earlier. “Air crews are making smart decisions and applying tactical patience every day.”

Other coalition spokesman have indicated that targeting has been limited to reaction strikes against operational groups of IS fighters. “When Daesh terrorists expose themselves and their equipment, we will strike them,” Col. Wayne Marotto said May 27.

The military website Long War Journal published a map showing 52 IS training camps and noted that some may no longer be operating because of the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

Bill Roggio, Long War Journal managing editor, said the Islamic State’s training camps are a direct threat to the region and U.S. national security.

“While the vast majority of trainees have been used to fight in local insurgencies, which should be viewed as a threat. Historically jihadist groups have selected a small number of fighters going through their camps to conduct attacks against the West. The Islamic State is most certainly following this model,” he said.

According the map, among the locations in Iraq and Syria where IS is operating training camps are Mosul, Raqqah, Nenewa, Kobane, Aleppo, Fallujah, and Baiji.

The group MEMRI obtained a video of an IS training camp in Nenewa Province, Iraq, dated Oct. 1, 2014.

The video shows a desert outpost with tan tents and around 100 fighters who take part in hand-to-hand combat exercises, weapons training, and religious indoctrination.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, an analyst with the Middle East Forum, in June translated details of IS training purportedly obtained from a manual produced by a pro-IS operative in Mosul named Omar Fawaz.

Among those involved in ideological training for IS jihadists in Iraq is Bahraini cleric Turki Binali, who wrote an unofficial biography of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Al-Tamimi stated in a blog post June 24.

According to a document thought to be written by Fawaz, training differs for native Iraqis and Syrians as opposed to foreign fighters, who generally are less experienced militarily than the regional trainees.

The document also reveals IS plans to export military manpower abroad, including Libya.

“Sessions for the muhajireen [foreign fighters] brothers last 90 days or more, and at the highest level deal with organization, determination, and intelligence operation, including training on heavy weaponry in addition to comprehensive Sharia sessions and multiple tests,” according to a translation of the document. “Sessions for the Ansar from the people of Iraq and al-Sham range between 30 to 50 days.”

The process begins with an application form and questionnaire regarding education, skills, viewpoints, and whether their backgrounds can be verified.

The training then includes physical fitness, martial arts practice, weapons training, and ideological indoctrination.

After a week of training, jihadists with special abilities are selected and placed in units. The units include special forces, air defense, sniper units, a “caliphate army,” an “army of adversity,” and administrative units for those capable of using electronic devices and accounting.

“The rest are distributed in fronts and camps after the end of the military camp training according to where they are needed,” the report said, noting that all graduates are tested in Sharia at the conclusion of their training.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Pentagon inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials doctored intelligence reports in an attempt to present more optimistic accounts of the U.S. military’s efforts in the conflict.

The probe was triggered by a DIA analyst who stated that Central Command officials were improperly rewriting intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama.

The Daily Beast reported Wednesday that senior military and intelligence officials inappropriately pressured U.S. terrorism analysts to alter estimates of the strength of the Islamic State to portray the group as weaker.

Central Command, on its website, stated that in the year since the Iraq operation began on Aug. 7, 2014, a total of 6,419 air strikes were carried out.
Targets damaged or destroyed include 119 tanks, 340 Humvees, 510 staging areas, 3,262 buildings, 2,577 fighting positions, 196 oil infrastructure targets, and 3,680 “other” targets not further identified.

Update 29 August, 12:00 P.M: This post has been updated with comment from Bill Roggio of theLong War Journal.

Update 30 August, 6:40 P.M: This post has been updated with additional comment from a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

Bill Gertz is the senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon.

“…for the Israeli government and Israel’s American lobby, Iran’s alleged nuclear threat has served the same purpose as Saddam’s non-existent WMD—it generates public support against a target that is designated for other reasons… ”

American critics are going all out to derail President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which also involves the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council — Britain, France, China, and Russia — plus Germany. (This group is referred to as the “P5 + 1,” in which the U.S. has taken the lead in negotiating with Iran.) The agreement seeks to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program in return for the gradual lifting of economic sanctions, but the critics are trying to portray the proposed pact as having just the opposite effect  The agreement will ultimately lead, they aver, to a nuclear armed Iran that will dominate the Middle East and become a major threat to American security.

On August 5, in a major speech at American University in Washington, Obama put forth a strong defense against the critics and even referred to what had heretofore been taboo topics, which are now so much in the open that they cannot be hidden. Obama made reference to Israel’s role in opposing the agreement and pointed out that the advocates in the U.S. who pushed for the war on Iraq, having a pro-force “mindset,” are now in the vanguard of the opposition to the treaty with Iran. What he did not do was to make a connection between Israel and the pro-force “mindset” group, or use the term “neoconservative” to better distinguish the latter group.[1] But he definitely got the point across to those who are in the know. As Paul Pillar, a former top CIA analyst, points out, Obama could not spell out the entire truth, in which the aforementioned issues would be only a part, because he needs “to maintain enough political correctness about Iran (and about Israel) to get the nuclear agreement through the Congressional gauntlet and across the finish line.”[2]

This essay unavoidably repeats some of the Obama administration’s defense of the agreement in order to go beyond what it has said and make the case that the ultimate effect of the criticism of the deal, whether realized by particular American critics or not, is to protect the interests of Israel, as those interests are perceived by the Israeli right , and that this has little to do with any alleged Iranian development of nuclear weaponry but rather reflects the Israeli fear of Iran attaining the status of an upstanding member of the world community as a result of this agreement.

Although there is no firm evidence that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program, the agreement puts that country under the toughest type of inspections in the history of nuclear non-proliferation. Iran will be required to place limits on what it can do in the nuclear area that far exceed the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which it is a signatory. For example, it must give up 98 percent of its enriched uranium, all of its plutonium producing capacity (which could be used for nuclear weapons), and two-thirds of its centrifuges (which are used to enrich uranium).[3]

What Iran will not have to do is give up a nuclear program that includes enrichment of uranium. However, Iran will only be permitted to enrich uranium to a very limited degree, not more than 3.67 percent, which is sufficient only for nuclear power. This will preclude it not only from developing weapons but also from various civilian activities, such as some medical applications. Critics, however, are vehemently opposed to allowing Iran to engage in nuclear enrichment altogether, demanding that its existing nuclear enrichment capability be dismantled. This would prevent Iran from having a full-fledged peaceful nuclear energy program and would make it dependent on outside sources for nuclear fuel, which could be blocked.

The critics’ position, however, would seem to seriously conflict with the position of the NPT, which stipulates in Article IV that signatories have “the inalienable right . . . to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The right to peaceful use of nuclear energy is considered one of the “three pillars” of the NPT, the other two being non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The NPT actually obligates nuclear powers to help countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which is a significant reason that countries without nuclear weapons would join the treaty.  While the U.S. has sometimes successfully pressured countries not to engage in nuclear enrichment (Taiwan being one example), it does nothing to try to stop NPT members Germany, Japan, and Brazil from doing this.

The critics, however, imply that such a right is contingent upon Iran’s not having any past infractions of the NPT, but this is not part of the law, and reflects the proclivity of people in the United States–and sometimes the U.S. government–to assume the right to unilaterally interpret international laws and apply those interpretations to other countries, which could even serve to justify attacks by the United States. Thus, critics of the agreement have claimed that the U.S. might find it necessary to attack Iranian nuclear installations, or support a comparable Israeli attack, even if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—the international watchdog agency charged with verifying compliance—had not discovered any Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.   Obviously, this approach represents a complete rejection of impartial international law and implies that the powerful determine what is right by virtue of their power.[4]

Critics contend that Iran will inevitably cheat since it will have clandestine sites involved in nuclear weapons development. However, with high tech surveillance it would seem to be virtually impossible to hide suspicious sites. And the agreement will allow for the IAEA inspectors to inspect any sites (not just Iran’s acknowledged nuclear program sites), including military bases, suspected of being involved in nuclear activity. Iran’s violations of this agreement could mean that the lifted economic sanctions would “snap back” into place.

What the critics rail about here is that in regard to the suspicious, undeclared sites, the inspectors would not have “anytime, anywhere” access, but rather, in order for inspections to take place, there could be a delay of up to 24 days to allow for dispute resolution and with only “managed access.” However, the allowed inspections of these suspected sites will still be far more robust and intrusive than the current NPT procedures. The NPT’s “Additional Protocol,”[5] which first opened suspected undeclared sites to inspection, does not set any time limit to a delay so that a country can legitimately prevent access to its undeclared sites by engaging in interminable negotiations.[6]

“Managed access” is an inspection approach which is intended to protect a country’s legitimate military and industrial secrets while not limiting the IAEA’s ability to carry out its verification activities. Making any site deemed suspect completely open for inspection could conceivably reveal national security secrets having nothing to do with a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and even facilitate the efforts of enemies to attack that country.   The United States maintains “managed access” along with a “national security exclusion” to limit IAEA inspection of its sites.

Undoubtedly, if any country needs to prevent enemies from discovering its national security secrets, it would be Iran. American and Israeli intelligence agencies have engaged in espionage, sabotage (in which cyber-sabotage loomed large), and assassination efforts aimed at Iran. Both Israeli and American leaders still talk about using a “military option” against it. Having clearer knowledge of Iran’s national security secrets could facilitate attacks, thus making them more likely to occur. And these attacks could be on targets having nothing to do with any clandestine nuclear program since those Americans and Israelis hostile toward Iran want to reduce the country’s overall military and economic power.

While critics claim that Iran could clean up such suspect sites, removing all traces of nuclear activity, it has been pointed out that it would be virtually impossible to eliminate all traces of radioactivity in that limited time period. Moreover, any delay would alert the United States and the rest of the world that the suspect site needed a close look and their spy agencies would supplement the work of the IAEA.

Also, as the agreement was signed “the issue of Iran accounting for its alleged past work has emerged as a flash point in the debate between Congress and the White House.”[7] Critics don’t seem to want just an Iranian explanation for past nuclear activities, but rather a confession of guilt, since the current Iranian explanations are unacceptable to them.[8] The administration has acknowledged that a confession of having a secret nuclear weapons program is unlikely, but that such a confession was not essential in verifying Iran’s actions in the future. [9] Top administration officials have emphasized that the nuclear accord with Iran rests on meticulous investigation, not on Iran’s trustworthiness. If Iran were regarded as completely trustworthy, there would be no need for this more stringent deal and Iran would simply be expected to abide by the existing NPT.

However, to deal with the historical issue, allegations that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons have been made for decades, but the actual development of nuclear weaponry never occurs. In short, it would seem apparent that Iran has chosen not to develop nuclear weapons, and it is even less likely to do so under a more robust inspections regime.[10]

The idea that the United States needs far more guarantees regarding Iran than any other country ever involved in nuclear non-proliferation is hard to fathom given its agreements with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As Graham Alliston points out in The Atlantic: “The Soviet Union was not known for integrity in international relations. According to Lenin’s operational codes, it was the Soviet leader’s duty to deceive capitalists and outmaneuver them. True to character, Moscow cheated, for example, in placing radars in locations prohibited by the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But in reviewing the history, it is hard to escape the conclusion that its cheating was marginal, not material.”[11]

The Soviet Union’s cheating may have been “marginal” but its potential danger to the United States was, at least theoretically, far greater than anything posed by Iran. As hard-liners, including the neocons, at that time contended, Soviet cheating could give it significant nuclear weapons superiority over the United States. In such a situation, they warned, the United States might be willing to make major concessions to the Soviet Union—which continued over time would end up as a “de facto” surrender—in the belief that the Soviet Union might think it could effectively decimate the United States in a first strike without suffering irreparable damage by any retaliation.

In contrast, the United States faces no comparable risk in the current agreement with Iran. The far more intrusive inspections, the vast improvement of surveillance devices over those that existed during the Cold War, and the much smaller size of Iran compared to the Soviet Union, would seem to make the likelihood of Iran cheating successfully much less than that of the Soviet Union. Moreover, even in the very unlikely event (anything not illogical being possible) that Iran would illicitly develop a nuclear weapon, there would not seem to be any reason that it would, or even could, attack the United States, which could easily decimate it.

But what about Israel? Iranian officials have spoken of eliminating Zionism, meaning the Zionist control of the state. This has been trumpeted by critics of Iran as meaning the nuclear annihilation of the territory controlled by Israel and essentially the mass murder of Jews. Mike Huckabee (former governor of Arkansas), who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, said that Obama’s deal with Iran would “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”[12] (This is presumably a Holocaust analogy though it dispenses with gas chambers, which, in conventional accounts, were used as the major killing instrument.)

Even in its rhetoric, Iran has not said that it would militarily attack Israel, despite Western media commentary to the contrary. Eliminating Zionism could by comparison be equated with the past American goal of “eliminating Communism”, which did not entail exterminating Russians or even attacking the Soviet Union. Moreover, regarding any comparison to the Holocaust, it should be noted that, outside of Israel, Iran has the largest Jewish community in the Middle East, which lives in relative safety.

Even if Iran should quickly start a nuclear weapons program (a development that the agreement would serve to prevent), with the few nuclear bombs that it could develop in the foreseeable future, any attack on Israel would bring about a massive nuclear retaliation. Furthermore, Israel is noted as having developed one of the most advanced missile defense systems, which could very likely provide sufficient protection against the very limited nuclear attack that Iran would be able to mount. And even in the extremely unlikely event (again, anything not illogical is not impossible) that Iran, at some future date, were able to effectively cripple Israel, Israel has nuclear-armed submarines that would be virtually impossible for Iran to counter. Thus, while Iran’s ability to knock out Israel would be highly improbable, Israeli nuclear retaliation would in all likelihood guarantee the incineration of all Iranian cities –and also kill most of the rest of the population by radiation—and essentially bring about the destruction of the Islamic State of Iran.

Anti-Iran propaganda wails that Iran’s leaders are apt to launch a suicide attack on Israel regardless of the consequences because they are religious fanatics indifferent to death, an attitude stemming from their purported firm belief in an afterlife in which they would be rewarded for their willingness to launch a nuclear jihad against the Zionist infidels. But there is no real evidence, in terms of either theological belief or past behavior, that this would be the case. For example, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei declared nuclear weaponry to be forbidden as a violation of Islamic principles, as likewise did his predecessor, Ayatollah Khomeini. Moreover, in engaging in any type of warlike actions, Iran has moved with great caution, relying almost always on propaganda and aid to allies. There is no evidence that the Iranian leadership would be willing to sacrifice their country, or their own lives (note that they tend to reach old age, eschewing many possible opportunities to achieve martyrdom), which would be the case in a nuclear war.

It should also be emphasized that Israel’s input in driving American political opinion against Iran’s nuclear program, highlighted by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015[13], reaches the heights of irony since the Jewish state is not even a signatory of the NPT and does not allow any inspections whatsoever of its top secret nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, Israel has been in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 487, which specifically called for Israel to put its own nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA. This resolution was passed by the UN Security Council in June 1981, with no country opposing and or abstaining, and this included the United States (during the Reagan administration). [14] Needless to say, this resolution is never mentioned by the mainstream American media or political establishment, which have presented international resolutions directed against Syria, Iran, Iraq (when ruled by Saddam) and other designated enemies of the US and/or Israel as the virtual equivalent of Holy Writ.

Of course, the U.S. is an abettor of Israel here. Although the U.S. Department of State professes that “the United States remains firmly committed to the goal of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction,”[15] it does nothing to pressure Israel to abide by the NPT and makes every effort to prevent other nations from trying to put pressure on Israel to do so.[16]

The U.S. does not even officially acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons despite having known so for years.[17] When the late Helen Thomas, then considered the dean of the White House press corps, dared to query Barack Obama on this taboo issue in 2009, the president, after some verbal bobbing and weaving, responded: “With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate.”[18] Were it really true that a U.S. president did not do everything possible to find out what countries in the world had nuclear arsenals, much less fail to even engage in speculation on this vital subject, one would think that such lethargy regarding America’s security would lead to demands for immediate impeachment and removal from office. But the supine American mainstream media, like the proverbial three monkeys—hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil —played along with Israel’s desires and criticized Thomas for asking the question. And Israel’s votaries were, of course, enraged. One thing led to another, culminating in a video recording by a pro-Zionist rabbi of some of her off-the-cuff remarks about Zionist Jews that made her appear as anti-Semitic (very elderly people, as was the 89-year-old Thomas, often tend to be lacking in circumspection), and her once notable career was brought to an ignoble end, at least from the mainstream perspective.[19]

United States action, or lack of action, regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons program may actually violate the NPT. There is considerable evidence that Israel relied on material and technology from the United States in order to develop its nuclear weapons arsenal.   Having studied declassified U.S. government documents on Israel’s nuclear weapons program, Grant Smith, an investigative reporter and author who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy, has shown that Israeli spies—including Netanyahu—have stolen material from the United States for the Jewish state’s nuclear weapons program. Smith further stated that “the ongoing clandestine movement of material and technology out of the U.S. may mean America has violated Article 1 of the NNPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], since according to the GAO it has never apparently taken successful efforts to stem the flow.”[20]

It should be added that the United States government in its relations with Israel also violates its own domestic law regarding the nuclear weapons issue. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibits U.S. military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology when they do not abide by IAEA rules and permit inspections.A special waiver is needed to provide aid in such cases, and this approach has been used for Pakistan, another non-signatory of the NPT with nuclear weapons. But, in line with Israel’s wishes, the United States government does not want to publicly recognize Israel’s nuclear weapons, and thus eschews this approach here. Hence, it directly violates federal law in its provision of aid to Israel, which is America’s foremost military aid recipient. [21]

The obvious effect of America’s position on nuclear weapons in the Middle East is thus not to promote a nuclear-free area but to guarantee a nuclear weapons monopoly for Israel. While this seems perfectly fair to many Americans, it is understandable why the United States is not seen as an honest broker in the Middle East and in much of the rest of the world. From an objective point of view, this would be an appropriate analysis since the U.S. applies a different standard to Israel than to other countries in that region.

Of course, the critics of the nuclear deal claim that while Iran cannot be trusted to have even a peaceful nuclear program, Israel would never use its nuclear weapons except to protect the actual survival of its people—usually topping it off with “from another Holocaust” in order to solidify its moral justification for possessing these weapons.  Of course, the question is how early in any conflict Israel would claim the threat of another Holocaust. It could conceivably be used in a preventive attack, which is what some of the critics believe should be taken against Iran right now.  Ultra-hawkish neocon Daniel Pipes, for example, cites the use of nuclear weapons as one of three possible scenarios for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program (the other two scenarios being conventional bombing from airplanes and special ops). He writes: “Nuclear weapons. This doomsday weapon, which tends to be little discussed, would probably be launched from submarines. It hugely raises the stakes and so would only be resorted to, in the spirit of ‘Never Again,’ if the Israelis were desperate.”[22] It should be noted that Pipes makes no effort here to qualify the nuclear attack as consisting only of very low yield, tactical nuclear bombs but instead categorizes the devices as “doomsday” weapons.

While Pipes only presents what he thinks might happen, there is additional information on how Israel has treated its nuclear arsenal. Grant Smith points out that “[a]s understood by the CIA back in the early 1960s, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is primarily used to coerce the United States to provide enough benefits that they will never have to be used.”[23] The threat need not be made overtly, though sometimes it has been. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War when the Egyptians achieved early military successes against Israel, though they did not cross its boundaries, Israel is said to have started preparations for a nuclear strike. This caused the United States to quickly strip its armed forces in Europe of equipment and airlift it to Israel, thus enabling the Israeli military to defeat its foes by conventional means.[24] But what would Israel have done if the U.S. had not taken such swift action? A nuclear strike was apparently a strong option.

It should also be pointed out that estimates of Israel’s nuclear arsenal range from 75 to 400 nuclear weapons, with, at least, the higher figures going far beyond what is needed for a deterrent against its Middle East adversaries. This number of nuclear weapons along with Israel’s long-range ballistic missiles and submarines make it a potential nuclear threat to many countries far outside the Middle East region.

Now getting back to the Iran nuclear deal: some criticism holds that even if Iran should faithfully abide by all the requirements of the nuclear deal, the agreement has time limits, and once these expire in fifteen years, Iran would begin to develop nuclear weaponry, and would be in a better position than ever to do so because of its vast increase in wealth resulting from the termination of the sanctions. “All Iran has to do is take the patience pathway to a nuclear weapon,” opines Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies.[25]

Now this is completely the opposite of the way the United States looked upon the former Soviet Union and China, in which it was maintained that trade and economic development make countries much less inclined toward aggression, and much more willing to accept the existing international order. There is no reason to assume that this would be different for Iran.

Moreover, as the Obama administration points out, there is also no reason, whatsoever, to think that other countries, including European ones, would retain their sanctions on Iran, especially since Iran has shown itself willing to make considerable concessions. And the sanctions already are crumbling. Switzerland, which, being neutral, had its own limited sanctions, has lifted them. And France, Germany and Italy are among the European Union countries acting as if sanctions have already been lifted, with their officials, government and private, going to Iran to set up profitable business and financial deals.[26]

Furthermore, the idea that the United States could bomb Iran’s sites involved in nuclear enrichment—and, presumably, to continue to do so every few years to prevent their redevelopment—would be a gross violation of international law that would severely harm its standing in the world. Instead of being a global leader, the United States would become more like a global pariah.

The latter criticism segues to the claim that any agreement with Iran should go beyond the nuclear issue, and deal with Iran’s missiles, involvement in other countries, lack of democracy, incarceration of American citizens, and other miscellaneous concerns. It is argued that the termination of the sanctions would not only show indifference to these glaring evils but would actually make Iran more dangerous in some of these areas. Neocon Dov S. Zackheim writes: “More ominously, Iran will now be flush with cash, with tens of billions of dollars accruing from both petroleum sales and the lifting of financial sanctions. No doubt Tehran will put that money to good use: increasing its support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Hafez Assad and the Houthi rebels; destabilizing Bahrain, Saudi Arabia’s eastern province; and extending its terrorist reach worldwide.”[27]

This claim is not likely to be true. As Vali Nasr, dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, points out: “Iran spent $15 billion on its military last year. By comparison, Saudi Arabia spent $80 billion, and the five other states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) spent another $35 billion. The Arab countries most worried about Iranian mischief outspent Iran by a margin of 8 to 1. Iran does not have an air force, and its ground forces and navy lag technologically behind its rivals. The nuclear deal will only widen this gap. At a summit at Camp David in May, President Obama promised GCC countries more military hardware and assistance to improve their ability to police the region. Meanwhile, under the terms of the nuclear deal, Iran would have to wait another five years for a U.N.-imposed arms embargo to be lifted.” (Nasr maintains that Iran signed the agreement to calm internal opposition, which was chafing at the sanctions’ negative impact on the economy, and to focus on the danger from ISIS, which threatens Iranian interests not only by being in Iraq but also by coming into neighboring Afghanistan.) [28]

Furthermore, Iran has various grievances, too, and could easily charge its enemies—the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some of the Gulf States—with oppressing their subjects, aiding rebels, destabilizing countries, and supporting terrorism. In fact, it is the interventionist actions of these countries to which much of Iran’s interventionism is a defensive reaction. [29]

It should also be noted that the U.S. supported Saddam’s Iraq in its war against Iran during the 1980s. The United States deployed in the Persian Gulf its largest naval force since the Vietnam War, the purpose of which was allegedly to protect oil tankers, but which engaged in serious attacks on Iran’s navy. Furthermore, US satellite intelligence facilitated Iraqi gas attacks against Iranian troop concentrations. Moreover, Washington allowed Iraq to purchase poisonous chemicals, and even strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, from American companies, which were subsequently identified as key components of the Iraqi biological warfare program by a 1994 investigation conducted by the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. The United States also prevented or weakened UN resolutions condemning Iraq for using chemical weapons. [30]

Administration defenders of the nuclear accord also point out that including these additional issues in the agreement—which would essentially require Iran to significantly change its foreign and domestic policies, after acknowledging the evil nature of what currently exists—would make a nuclear agreement with it impossible. But it is the nuclear issue that has been presented by Iran’s critics as being the principal danger to American interests and to the world in general, not such things as Iran’s support for Hezbollah and the Houthis or the lack of human rights in Iran.

Moreover, as a historical analogy, it should be noted that the United States negotiated and concluded the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) with the Soviet Union at the same time that the Soviets had invaded Czechoslovakia and provided support for North Vietnam against the United States.  What the critics’ effort to tack on these additional issues to the nuclear agreement with Iran tends to illustrate is that for them, Iran’s purported effort to develop nuclear weaponry is not really the major issue, despite the emphasis they placed on this alleged danger, but rather the issue is one of eliminating Iran’s overall power, which would include economic and diplomatic as well as military power, in the region. In short, for the Israeli government and Israel’s American lobby, Iran’s alleged nuclear threat has served the same purpose as Saddam’s non-existent WMD—it generates public support against a target that is designated for other reasons.   What goes further to demonstrate the fact that the criticism of the nuclear agreement is not to enhance American security but that of Israel—letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak—is when the critics charge that the agreement is a betrayal of America’s allies—essentially Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States. When this argument is put forth by the neoconservatives and other supporters of Israel, however, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia represents the height of insincerity because before Israel and the Saudis came together to oppose Iran as a common enemy, they took a very negative view of the Saudis, with Saudi Arabia being targeted by the neocons for regime change and dismantlement.[31]

The goal of the United States should be to protect its own interest, not serve the interests of other countries. It is understandable that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the small Gulf States might reasonably see Iran as an enemy, but their perceived interests are not necessarily those of the United States. That the Israeli government wants to maintain control of the West Bank and hegemonic power in the Middle East, for instance, is not an interest of the United States; in fact, America’s all-out support for Israel, by antagonizing Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere, endangers its own security. As John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt put it bluntly in their bombshell essay, “The Israel Lobby” (later a book), “the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel.”[32]

As for Saudi Arabia, Iran has been its rival for dominance of the Gulf region since before the advent of the Islamic Republic. The rivalry existed when the Shah, a close U.S. ally, ruled Iran, and the outbreak of an overall Shiite-Sunni religious war in the region has heightened it. Furthermore, animosity between Sunnis and Shiites has existed for more than a thousand years. That it is inadvisable for the United States to become enmeshed in an internecine war that has nothing to do with its own interests and will create for it more enemies should be an obvious no-brainer.

In regard to Saudi Arabia and Israel being allies of the United States, it is clearly Iran that is doing the most to combat ISIS, which the United States national security leaders have identified as the greatest threat to the nation. Israel is doing nothing and Saudi Arabia’s effort is minimal. In fact, wealthy Saudi private citizens provided initial support for ISIS along with aid to other Jihadi groups, doing so with, at the very least, tacit support from the Saudi regime.[33] And the Saudis’ effort to defeat the Houthis in Yemen has enabled Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to greatly expand its territorial control in Yemen. AQAP is seen by the U.S. security establishment as the most globally dangerous of the al-Qaeda branches because of the emphasis it places on attacking overseas targets.[34]

In short, Israel is not primarily fearful of a maniacal Iran that will attack it with nuclear bombs or cause havoc in the Middle East with its proxy forces. Rather, its greatest fear is that the nuclear agreement will be the beginning of a rapprochement with the United States that will enable Iran to become an upstanding member of the world community. Iran could aid the United States in helping to bring about stability in the Middle East, which was the traditional goal of United States policy in the region before it became sidetracked by the neocon-inspired destabilization efforts of the Bush II administration. As Robert D. Kaplan, who was named byForeign Policy magazine as one of the world’s “top 100 global thinkers,” writes in The Atlantic, “The United States needs Shia Iran to fight the extremist Sunnis of the Islamic State, and at the same time to pressure the Shia government in Baghdad to moderate its posture toward the Sunnis, in the name of internal stability in Iraq. Should the unhelpful Islamic government in Turkey grow more intractable, Iran could also prove helpful in balancing against it. . . . In addition, Iran and the United States could potentially work in tandem in Syria to preserve the political power of the country’s ruling Alawites—the Alawite sect being an offshoot of Shia Islam—even as they work together to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power. Furthermore, Iran could help steady neighboring Afghanistan in the wake of an American troop withdrawal, by serving as a buffer against pro-Taliban Pakistani and Saudi elements.” [35] Even if the new relationship between the US and Iran never goes this far, it is apparent that American foreign policy experts, at least those outside the orbit of the Israel lobby, see significant benefits to be derived from cooperation with Iran .

Israel is terrified by a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement in which Israel would lose its special relationship with the U.S. and be replaced by Iran.[36] While this fear is overwrought, it nonetheless exists. And there is a considerable degree of truth in this line of thinking.   Although it would seem impossible for Iran to actually replace Israel as America’s primary Middle East ally, U.S. cooperation with Iran could lead to a diminution of its all-out support for Israel, which rests on the belief propagated by its American supporters that the Jewish state is by far America’s best and most valuable friend in the Middle East and that the two countries’ interests essentially coincide. The United States might also begin to put pressure on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, and Washington might refrain from vetoing every vote against Israel in the UN Security Council. .

Moreover, a U.S./Iran rapprochement would have the effect of making Iran a member of the world community, which, with the elimination of sanctions, would be solidified by its business relations with Western countries. With Iran no longer being viewed as a rogue nation, the international spotlight would tend to fall more on Israel’s uninspected nuclear arsenal and its mistreatment of the Palestinians.

In a worst case scenario from the Israeli perspective, the effects of the nuclear agreement with Iran could spiral into Israel’s global isolation, the only alternative to which would be for Israel to join the NPT; allow for a viable, fully sovereign Palestinian state on the entire West Bank and Gaza; and perhaps even allow for equal rights for Palestinians who live in Israel proper. From the standpoint of the Israeli right, and even many other Israeli Jews, such developments would portend the end of a Jewish exclusivist state, which is Israel’s very raison d’etre. In essence, a peaceful Iran could be far more dangerous to Israel than one that was perceived as being bellicose.

Now the scenario sketched above is a possibility but far from being a certainty. For Israel and its American lobby are not noted for complacency and will do everything possible to nip this potential danger in the bud.

Remember that this Iran deal is not yet approved by the United States because it is to be voted upon by Congress. Since this is an executive agreement, not a treaty, it does not need to have a two-thirds vote of the Senate for approval.[37] In May, President Obama signed an act that would allow Congress to vote this deal up or down (no amendments). It will have until September 17 to perform this task. If both houses vote no, however, Obama would exercise his veto power, which would require a two-thirds vote in both houses to override.  Achieving such a super-majority in Congress to defeat the agreement, which would require considerable support from Democrats, would seem unlikely, but is certainly possible. Moreover, the new president who enters office in January 2017 could undo this executive agreement at his or her will. [38]

All Republican candidates say that they would revoke the agreement. Should Hillary Clinton be the next president, she too might take steps to undermine the agreement, given that her major backer is Haime Saban, who publicly stated that Israel is his fundamental political concern. But the fact of the matter is that America’s allies who have signed the accord are unlikely to follow along and reinstate sanctions, especially since, as pointed out earlier, they are already acting as if the sanctions have been lifted. And China and Russia almost certainly would not follow the U.S.[39] Without most of the major countries in the world participating in the sanctions, the economic effect on Iran would be negligible.

The indefatigable noninterventionist Justin Raimondo views the Iran deal as a great watershed in American policy and politics, writing in an August 7, 2015 article, titled “The Iran deal is the Israel lobby’s Armageddon,” that the Iran nuclear agreement represents the overall defeat of the Israel lobby and the concomitant elimination of its stranglehold over American Middle East policy. He jubilantly exclaimed: “The bottom line of all this is: if the deal goes through Congress unscathed, the Cheney coup will have been defeated. Our Israel-centric policy of fighting wars on Israel’s behalf will be over: the tail will no longer be wagging the dog. Once we defeat the Israeli-directed attempt to derail the deal in Congress we can safely go out into the streets declaiming: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we’re free at last!”[40]

In my mind, Raimondo’s joy is hyperbolic. Even if Congress cannot prevent the agreement from going through, the Israel lobby will remain influential enough to cause the U.S. to continue to treat Iran as an enemy and take various hostile actions against it and its ally Syria. Every effort will be made to claim that Iran is violating the treaty and working on a nuclear bomb. Acts of terrorism in the Middle East and throughout the world, especially the United States, will be attributed to the hand of Iran. And it is not inconceivable that Israeli agents might even engage in false flag and black operations to make it appear that Iran is the culprit. [41]

Since this latter reference deals with an ultra-sensitive matter that is apt to be shrugged off as anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering, this essay will expand on it with a little detail. For years stories have circulated that Israeli agents — especially those of Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad — have infiltrated Arab terrorist networks and have sometimes actually involved themselves in deceptive terrorist activities designed to appear as the work of Arabs. Observers, for example, allege that the Mossad thoroughly infiltrated the nefarious terrorist group Abu Nidal and turned some of its terrorist activities to Israel’s benefit.^[42] And then there is the notorious Lavon Affair in which even mainstream writers have acknowledged that bombings of Western property in Egypt in 1954, initially assumed to be the work of Arab nationalists, and contributing to the attack on Egypt by Britain and France (and Israel) in 1956, were actually carried out by Egyptian Jews in the service of Israel. ^[43]

The possibility that Israel might engage in such deceptive terrorism against the United States was touched on in a study by the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), which dealt with the difficulties an international peacekeeping force would face if it were used to maintain an Israeli-Palestine peace. A reference to this study appeared, poignantly, in a front-page article in the Washington Times on September 10, 2001 — one day before the terror attacks of 9/11. According to the article, “Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: ‘Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.’”^[44]

Anti-Iran propaganda could persuade a significant portion of the American public that Iran has violated the nuclear agreement and/or that it is engaging in serious terrorist activities. (Specious propaganda obviously works with the American public, as recent history shows.) That Iran would be seen as double-crossing the United States after making a solemn deal would make the public more hostile than ever toward Iran. Ultimately, the United States might scuttle the agreement and not simply reinstate sanctions but initiate some form of military action. In short, although Israel and its American myrmidons have lost a battle of considerable significance, they are still far from having lost the war for the control of American Middle East policy.

 

Notes

[1] Obama had used the same “mindset” argument in a previous speech to the Veterans of Foreign War. Michael A. Memoli, “Obama: Critics of Iran deal are the same people who rushed to war with Iraq,” Stars and Stripes,

July 21, 2015, http://www.stripes.com/news/us/obama-critics-of-iran-deal-are-the-same-people-who-rushed-to-war-with-iraq-1.359022?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+starsandstripes%2Fgeneral+%28Stars+and+Stripes%29

[2] Paul R. Pillar, “The Disastrous Neocon Mindset,” ConsortiumNews.com, August 6, 2015,https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/06/the-disastrous-neocon-mindset/

[3] Christine Mai-Duc and Paul Richter, “Who gave up what in the Iran nuclear deal,” Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-middle-east-iran-nuclear-deal-outline-20150714-htmlstory.html

[4] As Thucydides described the reality of inter-state relations in his famous Melian Dialogue in hisThe History of the Peloponnesian War, in which the powerful Athenians threaten the much weaker Melians: “The strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they are forced to accept.”   Thucydides pointed out that Athens’ aggressive hegemonic actions went too far and ultimately engendered enough opposition to do it harm, though the work ends before Athens’ final defeat. Richard Ned Lebow and Robert Kelly, “Thucydides and Hegemony: Athens and the United States,” Review of International Studies, 27:4 (October, 2001), pp. 593-609, http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/rabarrett/writing/Professional%20Examples/Lebow%20n%20Kelly–Thucydides%20n%20Hegemony-Athens%20and%20the%20US.pdf

[5] The IAEA adopted a Model Additional Protocol on May 15, 1997. “The 1997 IAEA Additional Protocol At a Glance,” Arms Control Association, updated April 2015,https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/IAEAProtoco

[6] Arshad Mohammed, “U.S., Iran finesse inspections of military sites in nuclear deal,” Reuters, July 15, 2015,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-iran-nuclear-military-sites-analysis-idUSKCN0PP2TG20150715

[7] Jay Solomon, “Lawmakers Say Iran Unlikely to Address Suspicions of Secret Weapons Program,”Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-says-iran-unlikely-to-address-suspicions-of-secret-weapons-program-1437953567

[8] David Albright, “What Iran’s hostile reaction to the Parchin issue means for the nuclear deal,” Washington Post, August 10, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/denying-the-obvious/2015/08/10/4b5b208e-3f75-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html

[9] Jay Solomon, “Lawmakers Say Iran Unlikely to Address Suspicions of Secret Weapons Program,”Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-says-iran-unlikely-to-address-suspicions-of-secret-weapons-program-1437953567

[10] Kelley Vlahos, “Has Iran Really Pursued Nukes?,” American Conservative, April 1, 2014,http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/has-iran-really-pursued-nukes/ ; Scott Peterson, “Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979,” Christian Science Monitor, November 8, 2011, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Earliest-warnings-1979-84

[11] Graham Allison, “A Point-by-Point Response to the Iran Deal’s Critics,” The Atlantic, July 8, 2015,http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-nietzsche/397970/

[12] Amita Kelly, “ ‘Offensive,’ ‘Sad’: Reaction To Huckabee’s Holocaust ‘Oven’ Reference,”

NPR, July 27, 2015   http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/27/426729144/offensive-sad-politicans-react-to-huckabees-holocaust-reference

[13] J.J. Goldberg, in the Forward, a leading Jewish publication, accurately refers to Netanyahu as “the field marshal leading the anti-deal troops.” “How Anti-Obama Zealots Went Off Rails on Iran Deal,” Forward, August 15, 2015, http://forward.com/opinion/319025/how-anti-obama-zealots-have-gone-off-the-rails-on-iran-deal/

[14] “UN Security Council Resolution 487 was adopted on June 19, 1981 following an Israeli attack on Iraqi nuclear installations on June 7. It called on Israel ‘urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards’.”

“UN Security Council Resolution 487, Israel,” Council on Foreign Relations,http://www.cfr.org/israel/un-security-council-resolution-487-israel/p19140; “Bombing Osirak, Burying UN Resolution 487 – An Exchange With The BBC’s Jonathan Marcus,” Media Lens, August 9, 2015, http://www.medialens.org/index.php/component/acymailing/archive/view/listid-1-alerts-full/mailid-128-bombing-osirak-burying-un-resolution-487-an-exchange-with-the-bbcs-jonathan-marcus.html

[15] Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of State, “Myths and Facts Regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Regime,”http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/2015/240650.htm

[16] Reuters in New York, “Netanyahu thanks US for blocking push for Middle East nuclear arms ban,” The Guardian, May 23, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/netanyahu-thanks-us-blocking-middle-east-nuclear-arms-ban

[17] Ari Yashar and Matt Wanderman, “US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel’s Nuclear Program,” Arutz Sheva, March 25, 2015, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193175#.Vbzd-vlViko.

[18] Grant F. Smith, “Will Obama Break the Law for Israel’s Sake?,” Antiwar.com, February 11, 2009,http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=14229

[19] Chris McGreal, “White House reporter Helen Thomas resigns after anti-Israel comments,” The Guardian, June 8, 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/07/white-house-reporter-helen-thomas-resigns; Roy Greenslade, “Helen Thomas went over the top, but why is she gagged in the land of the free?,” The Guardian, June 8, 2010,http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2010/jun/08/freedom-of-speech-usa ; Danny Schechter, “The US Media Hit on Helen Thomas,” Consortium.news, December 29, 2010, https://consortiumnews.com/2010/122910d.html

[20] Grant Smith, “Netanyahu Worked Inside Nuclear Smuggling Ring,” Antiwar.com, July 4, 2012,http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2012/07/03/netanyahu-worked-inside-nuclear-smuggling-ring/; Philip Weiss, “Israel’s nuclear arsenal is used to coerce the US on Middle East policy ,”Mondoweiss, September 3, 2012, http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/israels-nuclear-arsenal-is-used-to-coerce-the-us-on-middle-east-policy#sthash.nT2lY3Wu.dpuf

[21] “Israeli Nukes, US Foreign Aid and the Symington Amendment,” The Israel Lobby Archive, The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, http://www.irmep.org/ILA/nukes/default.asp ; Kenneth J. Theisen, “Israeli Nukes? Not according to the U.S.,” http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/palestine/5521-israeli-nukes-not-according-to-the-us.

[22] Daniel Pipes, “How Israel Might Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program,” National Review, July 16, 2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/421244/how-israel-might-destroy-irans-nuclear-program-daniel-pipes

[23] Philip Weiss, “Israel’s nuclear arsenal is used to coerce the US on Middle East policy ,” Mondoweiss, September 3, 2012, http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/israels-nuclear-arsenal-is-used-to-coerce-the-us-on-middle-east-policy#sthash.nT2lY3Wu.dpuf

[24] Warner D. Farr, “The Third Temple’s Holy of Holies: Israel’s Nuclear Weapons,” USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College, September 1999,http://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm; Richard Sale, “Yom Kippur: Israel’s 1973 nuclear alert,” September 16, 2002, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2002/09/16/Yom-Kippur-Israels-1973-nuclear-alert/64941032228992/

[25] Carol Morello and Karen DeYoung, “Nuclear deal with Iran scrutinized by experts,” Washington Post, July 17, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nuclear-deal-with-iran-scrutinized-by-experts/2015/07/17/8a53aaae-2c92-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

[26] Switzerland lifts sanctions against Iran, Reuters, August 12, 2015,http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/12/us-iran-nuclear-swiss-idUSKCN0QH22120150812; Simon Tisdell, “Sanctions against Iran crumble as America wrangles over the nuclear deal,” The Guardian, August 5, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/05/nuclear-deal-with-iran-europeans-scramble-for-persia; Alissa J. Rubin, “After Deal, Europeans Are Eager to Do Business in Iran,” New York Times, August 1, 2015,http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/world/europe/after-deal-europeans-are-eager-to-do-business-in-iran.html?_r=0 ; Shadia Nasralla and Maria Sheahan, “Iran is eyeing $185 billion oil and gas projects once sanctions lift,” Business Insider, July 23, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-is-eyeing-185-billion-oil-and-gas-projects-once-sanctions-lift-2015-7.

[27] Dov S. Zackheim, “The Iran Nuclear Agreement: Tehran ‘Achieved All It Wanted,’” National Interest, July 14, 2015, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-iran-nuclear-agreement-tehran-achieved-all-it-wanted-13334.

[28] Vali Nasr, “Why did Iran sign on to a deal that will weaken its regional hold?,” Washington Post, July 31, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-iran-sign-on-to-a-deal-that-will-weaken-its-regional-hold/2015/07/31/a9f48494-354a-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html?tid=hybrid_content_2_na.

[29] Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The Saudi Finger-Pointing at Iran,” Antiwar.com, June 13, 2015, http://original.antiwar.com/Leveretts/2015/06/12/the-saudi-finger-pointing-at-iran/; Stephen Sniegoski, “Iran: The Aggressor or the Aggressed Upon?,” The Council for the National Interest, May 3, 2015, http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/iran-the-aggressor-or-the-aggressed-upon-stephen-sniegoski/#.Vb37rvlVikp.

[30] Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The Saudi Finger-Pointing at Iran,” Antiwar.com, June 13, 2015, http://original.antiwar.com/Leveretts/2015/06/12/the-saudi-finger-pointing-at-iran/; Stephen Sniegoski, “Iran: The Aggressor or the Aggressed Upon?,” The Council for the National Interest, May 3, 2015, http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/iran-the-aggressor-or-the-aggressed-upon-stephen-sniegoski/#.Vb37rvlVikp .

[31] Stephen Sniegoski, “Saudi Arabia: The Neocons’ Once and Future Target,” My Catbird Seat,August 29, 2012, http://mycatbirdseat.com/2012/08/saudi-arabia-the-neocons-once-and-future-target/.

[32] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Israel Lobby,” Middle East Policy, 8:3 (Fall, 2006), p. 33; See Stephen Sniegoski, “Israel: Strategic Ally or Liability?,” My Catbird Seat, June 12, 2010, http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/06/israel-strategic-ally-or-liability/.

[33] Patrick Cockburn, “Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country,”Independent, July 13, 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html; Josh Rogin, “America’s Allies Are Funding ISIS,” Daily Beast, June 14, 2014, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html.

[34] Ali al-Mujahed and Hugh Naylor, “In parts of Yemen, rebels have lost control. No one else has it yet,” Washington Post, August 17, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-parts-of-yemen-rebels-have-lost-control-no-one-else-has-it-yet/2015/08/17/d3c2c7a6-4425-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html; Frank Gardner, “Yemen crisis reignites fear of al-Qaeda global threat,”BBC, April 9, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32243683

[35] Robert D. Kaplan, “Warming to Iran,” The Atlantic, January/February 2015,http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/warming-to-iran/383512/ .

[36] Ben Caspit, “Israel fears rapprochement between US, Iran,” Al-Monitor, February 19,2015,http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/israel-us-obama-moderate-iran-nuclear-talks-rapprochement.html

[37] The executive agreement, which has essentially the same status as a treaty in terms of international law, is a device that has been used from the beginning of the Republic but has become much more common since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. They have become far more popular to presidents than treaties since they do not need a two-thirds vote in the Senate to become law. For example, Ronald Reagan made 2,840 executive agreements and only 125 treaties; George W. Bush made 1,876 executive agreements and only 131 treaties; and Bill Clinton made 2,058 executive agreements and only 209 treaties. Melissa Quinn, “History Shows Obama Doesn’t Need Congress to Seal Iran Deal,” The Daily Signal, March 13, 2015, http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/13/will-white-house-pursue-treaty-executive-agreement-iran-heres-need-know/ ; Amber Phillips, “Can Congress stop the Iran deal?,” Washington Post, July 14, 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/the-role-of-congress-or-lack-thereof-in-the-iran-deal-explained/.

[38] Amber Phillips, “Can Congress stop the Iran deal?,” Washington Post, July 14, 2015,http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/the-role-of-congress-or-lack-thereof-in-the-iran-deal-explained/; John Yoo, “Why Obama’s Executive Action on Iran Does Not Violate the Law,” National Review, July 26, 2015, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421621/iran-deal-constition-supports-obama-executive-action.

[39] Julie Pace, “GOP presidential candidates pledging to overturn Obama’s Iran deal would face big obstacles,” US News and World Report, July 17, 2015,http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/07/17/for-candidates-revoking-iran-deal-easier-to-pledge-than-do.

[40] Justin Raimondo, “The Liberation of US Foreign Policy,” Antiwar.com, August 7, 2015,http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/08/06/the-liberation-of-us-foreign-policy/.

[41] Philip Giraldi, “Waving the ‘False Flag,’” Unz Review, January 27, 2015,http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/waving-the-false-flag/.

[42] Patrick Seale, Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire (New York: Random House, 1992).

[43] “The Lavon Affair,” Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/lavon.html;

David Hirst, “The Lavon Affair,” Excerpts from his book The Gun and the Olive Branch, http://www.serendipity.li/zionism/lavon_affair.htm.

[44] Rowan Scarborough, “US troops would enforce peace under Army study,” Washington Times, September 10, 2001, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/10/20010910-025319-6906r/.

 

“Something” happened three weeks ago. While we cannot be sure “what” exactly happened, we can speculate. We have many dots and lots of data points to help us but first it needs to be pointed out, even if wrong in conclusion …just the knowledge alone that “something changed” is enough. If you know something has changed, you can take clues and look at various markets for inflection points. Currently, most markets are stretched to various limits. Whether it be zero bound credit markets, equities, real estate, commodities or gold and silver, all values had reached extreme highs or lows.

Something changed three weeks ago and a series of events began. It all started with China announcing 600 additional tons of gold. This was followed by the IMF rebuff of China, the three yuan devaluations and three “coincidental” explosions. Then equity markets around the world (which were already weak) began to violently unravel and finally spilled over to the U.S.. This tested the PPT’s limits (which were apparently $23 billion last week).

There were other behind the scenes dots which I missed and would like to add here before theorizing. In the gold arena, the GLD inventory supposedly rose over the last two weeks even though gold was “weak” and being sold. This was against a backdrop of very deep backwardation going out a full six months in London. The current backwardation is further out in time and far larger in price than EVER before! These two data points are in exact divergence to a dropping gold price. Why would there be buying in GLD if gold was being panic sold? Also, if real gold was being dumped, how could it be in backwardation or shortage? Wouldn’t “sales” make product extremely plentiful?

There were several more major anomalies in gold. As of Friday, there were 63 August contracts still open …even though the contract went off the board. This has NEVER happened in 40 years! How is this possible? The day before on Thursday, there were 552 contracts open. Can someone please explain to me why the shorts would not have delivered gold (like they did in the old days) on the first or second delivery day rather than waiting to the last day? Someone has to pay for storage, why would the short want to pay for storage they are contractually able to deliver nearly 30 days prior and avoid the charges. Are they having problems sourcing gold? Just like several mints who have gone to rationing or halts of production …and exactly as the backwardation is suggesting?

Over in silver, did you know they had confirmed volume on Thursday of 122,482 contracts traded? Did you know this represents 612 MILLION ounces of silver …or over 87% of annual global silver production ex China and Russia? How in the world does 87% of a full year’s production trade in just several hours? Doesn’t this go against commodity laws? AND, silver was pummeled on Thursday so it was supposed to represent PANIC SELLING. Who was panicking and needed to sell all that silver so fast? …especially since the U.S. Mint just raised premiums and started rationing dealers because they couldn’t keep up with DEMAND! Let’s not forget the Royal Canadian Mint, they have suspended sales of silver Maples! Why or how could this be? Everyone has been selling silver but the mint could not source any? This defies pre school logic!

Let me give you another very strange data point. The FRBNY (New York Fed.) always reports custodial gold holdings on the 28th or 29th of the month for the previous month. They missed July 29th and reported on August 20 NO GOLD was shipped (to Germany for their repatriation program) when month after month they have been reporting close to 10 tons out the door. What’s going on?

Before telling you what I think has changed, we need to look at what China has just done. China has sold $100 billion worth of Treasury bonds over the last two weeks. Before they sold these, they devalued their yuan by about 5% which is the same thing as making their dollar holdings worth 5% more in yuan …so they increased their sale by the equivalent of $5 billion! Please understand the following because it is VERY important, we have not experienced hyper inflation in the U.S. because the debt was always “sterilized”. We actually exported the inflation to other nations and as long as they did not sell the actual dollars (if they sold Treasuries), the trade remained sterilized. It was reported Friday China had actually sold their dollars realized from the Treasury sales for …you guessed it YUAN! This drove the yuan up versus the dollar so China added even more to their trade. Brilliant!

This topic deserves an entire writing and I’ll undertake it later. Suffice it to say, the Federal Reserve had to buy the $100 billion worth of bonds. This is “reverse” QE or as they now say “QT” (quantitative tightening). As the great credit unwind continues, more and more Treasuries from China and other sources will hit the market and force the Fed to buy them. This will take more and more “space” on the Fed’s balance sheet but they will have NO CHOICE unless they want interest rates to skyrocket. In the end, the inflation we exported for so many years will come washing back on our shores like a tidal wave!

OK, what do I think “happened” three weeks ago?  On the original writing, I erroneously believed the SGE had not reported withdrawals for the last two weeks, this was incorrect and they have in fact reported withdrawals. This led me to believe China was no longer being delivered gold. No proof of this yet but it will mathematically happen. Why? Because the simple math says so. China/India can only import more than total production for as long as Western vaults have metal to dishoard. Once non delivery does happen and becomes known, our hoard of “power” will be gone and so will the façade of financial strength. Our standard of living will collapse into third world status hand in hand with a broken financial system.

Something behind the scenes has caused markets all over the world to convulse. The likely candidate involves leverage and most probably derivatives. As I wrote last week, “dead bodies must be strewn everywhere”, call them walking dead institutions or whatever. We have experienced 5% and even 10% moves in various markets in less than a week’s time or even in just one day. Many derivatives are carried with just one or two percent margin, in other words the moves have been big enough to completely wipe out equity. Winners become losers when the losers cannot pay and default.

There is one more piece of news that may be nothing at all or it may fit hand in hand with the above. King Salman of Saudi Arabia announced a visit for this coming week with president Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-king-plans-to-visit-us.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

The press has speculated the meeting has to do with the Iran deal or even aggressions with Yemen. I don’t think so. My guess is King Salman may be coming to Washington to say “the deal is off”. The “deal” being Henry Kissinger’s early 1970’s petrodollar. I suspect Saudi Arabia will inform our commandeer in chief, they will begin accepting yuan for oil. The Saudis have over the last year or more done many trade deals with both Russia and China. It should only follow at some point they do not use dollars but instead use their own currencies.

Before finishing, Saudi Arabia increased their oil production at the behest of Washington to injure Russia. I think the price drop got way out of control as the algos took over. The drop was so severe it has seized up the U.S. fracking industry and put at least $500 billion worth of energy credit in jeopardy while China has filled up her storage reserves with cheap oil. If I am correct about the gold default, China/Russia have also made strategic strides in trade with Iran and Saudi Arabia in preparation.

The important thing is you understand “something” very big has happened and trends are changing in many markets. The leverage in all markets suggests a “holiday” will occur because the unwinding cannot be orderly. The “unwinding” by the way will need to undue the credit built upon credit going all the way back to Aug. 15, 1971!

The riveting writer, Michael Hudson, has read our collective minds and the simmering anger in our hearts. Millions of American have long suspected that their inability to get financially ahead is an intentional construct of Wall Street’s central planners. Now Hudson, in an elegant but lethal indictment of the system, confirms that your ongoing struggle to make ends meet is not a reflection of your lack of talent or drive but the only possible outcome of having a blood-sucking financial leech affixed to your body, your retirement plan, and your economic future.

In his new book, “Killing the Host,” Hudson hones an exquisitely gripping journey from Wall Street’s original role as capital allocator to its present-day parasitism that has replaced U.S. capitalism as an entrenched, politically-enforced economic model across America.

This book is a must-read for anyone hoping to escape the most corrupt era in American history with a shirt still on his parasite-riddled back.

Hudson writes from his most powerful perch in chapters describing how these financial parasites have tricked our society into accepting them as a normal, productive part of our economy. (Since we write about these thousands of diabolical tricks four days a week at Wall Street On Parade, poignant examples came springing to mind with every turn of the page in “Killing the Host.” From the well-placed articles in the Wall Street Journal to a front group’s pleas for more Wall Street handouts in a New York Times OpEd, to the dirty backroom manner in which corporate speech was placed on a par with human speech in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, to Wall Street’s private justice system and the Koch brothers’ multi-million dollar machinations to instill Ayn Rand’s brand of “greed is good” in university economic departments across America — America has become a finely tuned kleptocracy with a sprawling, sophisticated public relations base.)

How else to explain, other than kleptocracy, the fact that Wall Street’s richest mega banks collect the life insurance proceeds and tax benefits on the untimely deaths of their workers – all codified into law by the U.S. Congress – making death a profit center on Wall Street. Or, as Frontline revealed, that two-thirds of your 401(k) plan over a working lifetime is likely to be lost to financial fees.

Read complete article

Increasingly difficult to cover-up or spin, it is becoming apparent even in Western media coverage that the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) is not sustaining its fighting capacity from within Iraq or Syria, but rather through supply lines that lead to and from adjacent nations. These nations include Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and most obviously, NATO-member Turkey.

It was in Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW)’s report, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey,” that hundreds of trucks destined for ISIS held territory were videotaped waiting at Oncupinar, Turkey to cross over into Syria with apparently no oversight by the Turkish government. Later, TIME magazine would admit ISIS’ dependence on the Syrian town of Tal Abyad, just across the border from Turkey, for supplies and the significance of its loss to Kurdish fighters in sustaining their fighting capacity both at the border and beyond.

AP’s June 2015 report, “Kurds move to cut off ISIS supply lines in Syria,” would state:

Syrian Kurdish fighters closed in on the outskirts of a strategic Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-held town on the Turkish border Sunday, Kurdish officials and an activist group said, potentially cutting off a key supply line for the extremists’ nearby de facto capital. 

Taking Tal Abyad, some 50 miles from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) stronghold of Raqqa, would mean the group wouldn’t have a direct route to bring in new foreign militants or supplies. The Kurdish advance, coming under the cover of intense U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in the area, also would link their two fronts and put even more pressure on Raqqa as Iraqi forces struggle to contain the group in their country.

And while US airstrikes are credited for Kurdish advances against ISIS, one wonders why the US, whose military including a US airbase at Incirlik, Turkey and US special forces as well as the CIA are operating along and across the Syrian border in Turkey – hasn’t done more to interdict ISIS supply lines before they reach Syria and awaiting terrorists.

The Kurds and Syria’s military both realize the importance of stemming terrorist armies within Syria by cutting them off from their supplies at Syria’s borders. However, both the Kurds and Syrian forces are increasingly limited from securing these borders due to an ever-expanding “safe haven” the US and its regional allies are carving out of Syrian territory. Turkey and Israel have both attacked Syrian forces in these “safe havens” creating a virtual sanctuary for Al Qaeda affiliates including Al Nusra and ISIS.

Efforts to “assist” the Kurds appear only to have been a pretext to violate Syrian airspace first, then Syrian territory on the ground second. America’s meager “Division 30″ of less than 60 fighters trained in Turkey then sent to fight the thousands upon thousands of terrorists the US and its allies have been arming, training, and sending over Syria’s borders for years was yet another attempt to make ISIS and Al Nusra’s gains appear a result of Western folly rather than of Western design.

How the West Can Stop ISIS Without Setting Foot in Syria 

An old military maxim states: “an army marches on its stomach.” Logic dictates that an army with empty stomachs is unable to march. Napoleon Bonaparte who is credited with this quote, found out first hand just how true these words were when his army found itself deep within Russia without supplies, leading to its ultimate and catastrophic defeat.

Likewise, ISIS’ fighting capacity depends entirely on its supply lines. Cutting these supply lines will lead to its inevitable defeat. For the United States, who is either allied with or has troops operating in all nations bordering Syria, cutting ISIS’ supply lines would be a simple matter – that is – if the United States was truly interested in defeating ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates.

While the United States has assisted Turkey in erecting missile defenses along its border with Syria in order to create a defacto no-fly-zone providing Al Nusra and ISIS with an invaluable sanctuary, little to no effort has been spent in increasing border security – specifically the searching for and interdiction of terrorist fighters, weapons, and other supplies. As German DW’s report illustrated, it appears Turkey’s borders are not only dangerously wide open, but intentionally so, with little or no effort at all by Turkey to stem the torrent of obvious ISIS supply convoys from passing through.

DW would likely videotape a similar situation unfolding in Jordan near its border with Syria, close to Syrian cities like Daraa which have become battle-torn as Syrian forces desperately try to stem the torrent of fighters and weapons flowing over the borders there, aimed ultimately at Damascus.

The US Can Stop ISIS in One Month… If it Wanted

By cutting off ISIS from its money, supplies, additional fighters, weapons, and essential equipment, it would quickly be overwhelmed by Syrian and Iraqi forces. Without cash to pay fighters, and without new fighters to replace those lost in fighting, morale would quickly falter. Without a constant torrent of weapons, ammunition, and fuel, ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates would quickly lose their tactical capabilities. Fighters unable to flee would be encircled and destroyed as has happened deep within Syria’s interior where Syrian forces have been able to cut supply lines to key cities and starve out terrorist armies.

Syria is intentionally prevented from securing its borders through an increasingly overt “buffer zone” or “safe haven” the US and its regional allies are creating for the purpose of sheltering clearly non-existent “moderate rebels.” What these “safe havens” are in actuality doing, is ensuring ISIS’ supply lines remain intact. With the Kurds – the only effective force near the Turkish-Syrian border able to threaten ISIS’ supply lines – now being attacked by Turkish forces directly, what little obstacles supplies had in reaching ISIS through Turkey is being swiftly negated.

The US and its allies could easily increase security along Syria’s borders and permanently cut ISIS and other Al Qaeda affiliates supply lines without having to enter Syrian airspace or cross onto Syrian soil. Just as easily as the US built a line of missile defenses facing Syria, it could create border checkpoints and patrols within Turkey to interdict and effectively stem all weapons and fighters flowing to ISIS. It could, but it intentionally doesn’t.

The implications are obvious. ISIS is both a creation and intentional perpetuation of US foreign policy. Just as the US so many years ago colluded with Saudi Arabia in the creation of Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan in the first place, it to this day colludes with its regional allies to use Al Qaeda and its various rebrandings – including ISIS – to fight wars Western troops cannot fight. This includes dividing and destroying Syria – the overtly stated, true objective of US policymakers.

Could Syria and its allies create their own “buffer zone” in northern Syria? Could international troops be brought in, with the inclusion of UN observers to secure the Syrian border and put in check attempts by both Turkey and the US to engage Syrian and Kurdish fighters attempting to restore order there?

The incremental strategy of carving out northern Syria, claiming to shelter “moderate rebels” while in reality securing further ISIS’ supply lines and providing them an increasingly unassailable safe haven from which to launch operations deeper into Syria, is inching along and will inevitably pay off at the expense of Syrian territorial integrity, stability, and perhaps even its existence as a functioning state if no measures are taken to counter this conspiracy.

The basics of logistics and the simple fact that the US can both fight and defeat ISIS by simply securing Turkey and Jordan’s borders must be repeatedly brought up by non-Western media and diplomatic circles – highlighting the fact that Syria’s conflict is one of foreign invasion, not civil war. The conflict can be brought to an end, along with all the horrors associated with it, by simply checking ISIS’ bags at the Turkish border. If the US and Turkey refuse to do this, someone must check them on the other side, someone the US and Turks may hesitate to attack as they have the Syrians and Kurds.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

 

National oppression and mass impoverishment continues in the Gulf and around the U.S.

It has been a decade since the people of New Orleans and the Gulf coast were dislocated due to the failure of the federal government to both protect their communities and to rebuild them after the hurricane.

An undetermined number of people died, officially said to be approximately 1,800 just in New Orleans, during and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina which struck the last week of August 2005. Many others suffered severe injuries while the municipal and health care systems in the area were overwhelmed.

Thousands of homes were damaged due to the storm causing mass evacuations to convention centers, stadiums, building roofs and in the streets of New Orleans as well as other cities and towns. Later people were transported out of the region along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Families, neighborhoods, churches, organizations, schools, social clubs and a centuries-long culture were wiped out in a matter of days. Although the federal government under the leadership of the-then President George W. Bush told media outlets that they were working to provide assistance to the impacted cities, towns and rural areas, these falsehoods were soon revealed.

White armed militias prevented African Americans from fleeing into their neighborhoods amid reports of outright racially motivated murders. Police and law-enforcement personnel disappeared in the disaster creating an atmosphere of lawlessness and abandonment.

Domestic Warfare While the Middle East and Afghanistan Burned

The aftermath of the Katrina disaster exposed the Bush administration for both its domestic and international failures. With the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it drained the ranks of the military reserves and National Guard personnel.

Domestic military forces were in short supply and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) demonstrated its racist character and administrative incompetence. The images of hundreds of thousands dislocated African Americans in public areas, buses and on warships awaiting removal illustrated the national oppressive and class contradictions within the world’s leading capitalist and imperialist state.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which began in October 2001, resulted in the deaths of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops along with hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries. Nonetheless, the Bush administration along with the Congress was determined to continue these occupations which were based on fabricated allegations of a “war on terrorism” and destroying “weapons of mass destruction.”

When several other states such as Cuba, Venezuela and France offered material assistance to the people of the region, the Bush administration declined saying that the U.S. was a wealthy country and could take care of its own people. Cuban physicians were prepared to deploy to the Gulf and Venezuela was willing to send ships with fuel in a gesture of solidarity with the African American people and others in the region.

Therefore, by not providing assistance to the people and preventing others from doing so, the government was in effect intensifying a war against the oppressed. Over the next two years, the economic crisis within the U.S. mounted as jobless rates skyrocketed along with massive home foreclosures and evictions.

Impact of Federal Policy on the People of the Region

Estimates suggest that over 1 million people were forced to relocate while untold numbers perished and suffered even deeper levels of poverty and social neglect.  The African American communities of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama along the Gulf were disproportionately impacted.

The damage done to the eighth and ninth wards provided a rationale for mass removals in New Orleans. Public housing complexes shuttered and neighborhood housing residents were not provided with any assistance to relocate and rebuild.

Thousands were placed in makeshift government housing where they suffered further injury and isolation. In cities as far away as Detroit, dislocated African Americans and others were warehoused in hotels for months until they were told by the government that they could no longer house them.

After ten years most African Americans are still living outside Louisiana and the Gulf region with no prospects of returning to their homes. Whole neighborhoods remain in ruins with damaged homes, churches, schools and businesses that have not been able to reopen. The New Orleans public schools were turned over to a charter system leaving teachers and other educational workers unemployed.

In a recent article published by the German newspaper Deutsche Welle (DW), a woman named Meghan Sullivan, who works as an ultrasound technician now living in Houston, Texas, told the media outlet that her family could not afford to relocate in New Orleans. (August 30)

She explained to DW that “We had to evacuate quite suddenly and leave everything behind that didn’t fit in the car. We didn’t realize it was going to be this bad, but we lost everything in the storm.”

Sullivan went on to say “A year later, we decided to move to Houston. We were pretty much priced out of buying a new home in New Orleans at that point already. There simply weren’t enough properties around. And now, people, who have never lived in New Orleans before, are spending insane amounts of money to buy tiny condos and miserable plots of land, while no one knows how long it will take until the next natural disaster hits the city.”

Rebuilding Without the Black Masses

Corporate news reports about a rebirth of New Orleans are taking place with the current domination of the political structures by whites and the further oppression of African Americans.

Whereas assistance was made available through grants and insurance companies for those impacted in white communities, the same was not true in the African American neighborhoods. Many in the ninth ward were falsely told that if they lived close to the levee one did not need insurance and that the federal government would cover their expenses in the case of a disaster.

At the same time thousands of African Americans in the ninth ward were either denied flood insurance or could not afford the coverage. Consequently, they were left with no resources to relocate and reconstruct damaged and destroyed homes and communities.

In another article published by Deutsche Welle written by Richard Walker from New Orleans, he interviews a local housing activist Cashauna Hill of Greater New Orleans Fair Housing. Hill

told Walker how “Our counselors began to notice that white homeowners in white neighborhoods were slated to receive larger grants than those for black homeowners in African-American neighborhoods – even when their homes were of similar age and similar square footage.” (August 28)

Grants were allocated not based on the cost of reconstruction, but instead on the market value of the residence before Katrina. Such a formula must always take into account the racist history of how housing values are determined for insurance and real estate assessment purposes.

Hill noted that “Because of this country’s history of government-sanctioned and sponsored racial segregation and discrimination, African-Americans’ homes in African-American neighborhoods are valued lower than the homes of white people in white neighborhoods.”

Rents have soared in the last decade and low-income African Americans have been largely price out of the market. Landlords often discriminate against people who are allocated housing vouchers as opposed to those who pay cash.

These developments in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast have been replicated socially throughout the U.S. The so-called “sub-prime” mortgage crisis of the late 2000s had the same impact in numerous cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Atlanta, Boston and others areas.

Despite the fines paid to the federal government by the banks which engineered the housing crisis, most of the monies have not reached the people who were adversely impacted by the dislocations absent of a natural disaster. Until housing is considered a fundamental human right in the U.S. this problem will only worsen in the years to come.

A Ukraine police servicemen has been killed and at least 10 injured as a grenade exploded during clashes in front of the parliament in the Ukrainian capital today. 

According to official sources, at least 100 citizens of Kiev were injured and 30 arrested during the clashes in the capital. Meanwhile, the militants of Right Sector has triggered riots in the center of the Ukrainian capital. 

Crowds of protesters came to oppose amendments to the constitution that would provide for the decentralization of the country. The media also reported that  demonstrators attacked police with long sticks and smoke bombs, which were being thrown along with stones.

Police are now trying to stop the demonstrators led by Right Sector from storming the parliament building. Both protesters and police officers are using tear gas against each other.

Meanwhile, in Novorossia, Ukrainian forces have violated the ceasefire agreement at least 32 times over the past 24 hours.

Ukrainian army fired on the Donetsk airport and the nearby villages of Zhabichevo and Spartak. The shelling was conducted from Maryinka, Peski, Avdeyevka and Opytnoye.

Also, the positions of the LPR Armed Forces were shelled at Sokolniki and Kalinovo from the directions of Lozovaya, Kryakovka, Luganskoe. An Ukrainian military column was observed at the Stannica Luganskaya settlement.

Sporadic clashes have been continuing at Volnovakha, Mariupol, Strogonovka and Bahmutka. Kiev’s side is continuing to pull military equipment and troops to the frontline.

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.sott.net/
http://thesaker.is
http://fortruss.blogspot.com
http://in4s.net
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

A Forbes report on alleged Russian army casualties in Ukraine citing a dodgy Russian website has sparked a media and Twitter storm. Some said Russia had “finally slipped” with the leak on its troops in Ukraine; others were baffled by the “fake publication.” RT decided to investigate.

A Forbes contributor, Paul Roderick Gregory, published an article on Wednesday citing a Russian web source called “Delovaya Zhizn” (translated as Business Life), which was said to reveal “official figures on the number of Russian soldiers killed or made invalids in eastern Ukraine.”

The report, dated March 2015 and entitled “Increases in Pay for Military in 2015,” was altered, with the relevant information being removed, after the Forbes publication came out. However, the original copy was webcached by Google.

The cache shows that the website, which has articles on Russian finance, markets and leisure, claimed that the Russian government had paid monetary compensation to Russian soldiers who “took part in military actions in Eastern Ukraine.”

Without citing a source, the article claimed that as of February 1, more than 2,000 families of soldiers killed in Ukraine had received compensation of 3 million rubles (about $50,000) and those crippled during military action – a half million rubles (about $25,000). It added that another 3,200 soldiers wounded in battle had received compensation of 1,800 rubles for every day they were in the conflict zone.

The Forbes contributor accused “Russian censors” for “quickly removing the offending material.”

The Forbes report was picked up by Western media and independent journalists. The International Business Times reported that the Russian article had “accidentally published the leaked figures.” 

An article by The Independent on Wednesday called Delovaya Zhizn a “respected news site in Russia,” and cited the head of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, James Nixey, who said that the report is a “nail in the coffin” in proving Russia is engaged in military action.

Another media outlet piling on was was Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), which claimed it had received a response from some Anatoly Kravchenko from Delovaya Zhizn, who said the website had “received the casualty figures from relatives of dead servicemen as well as ‘insider information’ from the Russian Defense Ministry.” However, they added that the website’s representative had “declined to identify any specific sources.”

Western officials, including two former US ambassadors to Russia and to Ukraine and the US ambassador to OSCE, also retweeted the report.

The publication sparked a Twitter storm with some western journalists, researchers, analysts and think-tanks giving their full trust to the source.

However, at a certain point the media storm came to a halt.  Bloomberg’s Leonid Bershidsky concluded that the initial Delovaya Zhizn report was fake, questioning the URL, Bs-life.ru, and exposing a grammatical error (“v Ukraine” instead of “na Ukraine”).

AP journalist Nataliya Vasilyeva pointed out the ease of spreading fake information on the web.

“The ease of spreading rumors in the digital world is astonishing,” she wrote.

“Two days of Western officials retweeting a Forbes report quoting a Ukrainian web-site quoting a non-existent Russia news web-site re Ukraine,” she added.

The main problem here is, of course, where was the Forbes online editor when the story was published, why nobody bothered to check sources?

Indeed, the Russian State media watchdog, Roscomnadzor, has four registered media sources of that name on its website.  All of them are listed as print publications – newspapers or magazines. Electronic media is not mentioned.

The Delovaya Zhizn (bs-life.ru) website, however, does not contain any reference to a print edition or mail subscription. Moreover, it does not detail its staff, its owner or founder, or any relevant contact information except for an online reply form.

RT attempted to contact the publication by phone numbers collected through open sources on the web, but received no answer by phone.

RT’s Ilya Petrenko also visited a Moscow address for Delovaya Zhizn that he found online, but there was no sign of the obscure website’s office there.

However, after sending a request via an online form, RT got a reply from someone called Anatoly Kravchenko – the same name as was used in Western media reports – introducing himself as “representing” Delovaya Zhizn.

The statement said that the original story in question had not contained the part about “[Russian] servicemen in Ukraine”nor had it been edited by any of the site’s staff until August 23.

“On August 23 the editorial staff received emails requesting clarification of the information contained in the article, in its last part. This is how we discovered that the site had been hacked… and an editor removed the part of the text added by the perpetrators to the story,” the email said.

It added that the site had been hacked on August 22, allegedly from a Kiev-registered IP address. The statement stressed that the news site “does not have any political orientation and does not support any political power in the RF [Russian Federation].” RT could not immediately confirm the identity of the contact – something which apparently did not stop Western news outlets from citing the claims. This is not the sole example of unverified information related to the Ukrainian conflict appearing on the web. However, few such “leaks” make it to big media. In one of the instances, US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was caught posting unverified images on his Twitter feed in September 2014. The photos, which he said showed US-Kiev military exercises in Ukraine, had already been published in July 2014 and in October 2013. In another case in April, Pyatt claimed that Russia’s military was continuing to expand its presence in eastern Ukraine. As proof, he posted a picture of a Buk-M2 missile defense system that he said was stationed in Ukraine. However, it turned out to be a two-year-old photo from an air show near Moscow.

Thousands of refugees and asylum seekers head for safe havens daily – a human flood entering Europe, risking life and limb to get there. Why?

Endless US direct and proxy wars force desperate people to seek safety out of harm’s way. Numbers fleeing war and destabilized areas are greater than any time since WWII – increasing exponentially as conflicts and chaos rage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Donbass, Somalia, South Sudan, and elsewhere.

According to a UNHCR report,  60 million people were forcibly displaced by end of 2014. Globally one in every 122 people are asylum seekers, refugees or internally displaced persons. More than half the world’s refugees are children.

On August 28, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said over 300,000 refugees and asylum seekers crossed the Mediterranean to reach Europe so far this year – greatly exceeding 2014’s 219,000 total, a human flood likely to approach half a million by year end, likely hundreds of thousands more in 2016 and beyond.

Thousands of others die or go missing. On August 27, hundreds were feared dead after two overcrowded vessels capsized off Libya’s coast. Dozens of Syrian refugees were found suffocated to death in a truck parked on an Austrian highway – their bodies in a state of decomposition. Other similar horror stories repeat with disturbing regularity.

Statements expressing concern by Germany’s Angela Merkel, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other top world officials ring hollow.

Crisis resolution is obvious – not considered nor will it be. End US orchestrated and led imperial wars. The UN Charter’s pledge “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind” proved empty rhetoric.

America’s record is unparalleled – endless wars at home and/or abroad every year in its history, begun long before the republic’s inception.

The current US presidential race features an array of imperial warriors – not a peace and stability advocate in the bunch.

Hillary Clinton is a reckless war goddess. Donald Trump wants “the strongest military that we’ve ever had.” Other Republican aspirants support increased defense spending and militarism. Bernie Sanders supports all Obama wars. They exceed the worst of George Bush.

No matter who becomes president in 2017, America’s killing machine will keep raging – ravaging and destroying one country after another, causing an endless human flood of refugees, risking the unthinkable if Russia or China are challenged belligerently.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

There now is open disagreement between three Western leaders regarding how to move forward with regard to Ukraine: Barack Obama of the United States, versus Francois Hollande of France, and Angela Merkel of Germany.

On Friday, August 29th, this split became public concerning whether the Minsk II accords for ending the Ukrainian civil war should remain in force. Obama supports the view of Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, to violate the Minsk II accords, which would end it; the same day, Hollande and Merkel agreed with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, that the Minsk II agreement needs to be implemented in full.

Merkel and Hollande had arranged the Minsk II accords without U.S. President Obama’s participation, because Obama’s Administration had installed the new, anti-Russian, government in Ukraine in a February 2014 coup, which sparked the breakaway from Ukraine by two former Ukrainian regions that had voted heavily for the man whom Obama had just overthrown, Viktor Yanukovych: first, Crimea, which had voted 75+% for Yanukovych; then Donbass (comprising “Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts”), which had voted 90%+% for Yanukovych. Obama’s agent overseeing the coup, Victoria Nuland, selected Arseniy Yatsenyuk to run the post-coup government and he became the newly appointed Prime Minister when the coup (called “the most blatant coup in history”) occurred 18 days later.

Then, on 25 May 2014, the parts of Ukraine that had not separated from Ukraine elected as Ukraine’s new President, Petro Poroshenko. Mr. Poroshenko had informed the EU’s investigators on 25 February 2014 that the overthrow of Yanukovych had been via a coup instead of by a revolution (such as the Obama Administration claimed); but, now, on 25 May 2014, he himself became the new Ukraine’s President. In order to protect himself against the possiblility of being violently overthrown as his predecessor Yanukovych had been, he filed a case with Ukraine’s supreme court, the Constitutional Court, to recognize officially that Yanukovych had illegally been removed from the Presidency. (That case is still pending.)

The current split concerns the provision in the Minsk II accords that requires the Ukrainian government to grant to the breakaway Donbass region a position within a new federal Ukrainian system in which the residents of Donbass will elect their own local leaders, instead of having their leaders imposed upon them (as the coup was) by the central Ukrainian government in Kiev. Donbass will then rejoin Ukraine, and the war will be officially over.

On August 29th, Russia’s Interfax News Agency headlined, “Poroshenko: Ukrainian constitution won’t envision special status for Donbass,” and reported that Poroshenko said (referring to the current Ukrainian Constitution, and which he will not change), “No matter how you look for it there, there is no special status [for Donbass]. … That would lead to a parade of sovereignties. My amendments to the constitution eliminate this article, and there will be no right to such special status.”

A few hours later the same day, Interfax bannered, “Merkel, Hollande Inform Putin on Adherence to Minsk Agreements,” and reported that Putin had phoned both EU leaders about this and received from them reassurance that they, like he, remained committed to full implementation of Minsk II. (Putin does not want Donbass to become part of Russia, but he also doesn’t want theinvasion of it by the Ukrainian Armed Forces to continue, especially because it has caused nearly a million refugees into Russia from Donbass. So: he needed to know whether they were behind Poroshenko’s statement, or whether it reflected only Obama’s view.)

This is an international continuation of the disagreement within the Obama Administration regarding Poroshenko’s recent repeated threats to re-invade and forcibly take back Donbass despite the Minsk accords. At first, Kerry said that the U.S. would not support such an invasion, but his nominal subordinate, the Assistant Secretary of State for the area, Victoria Nuland, contradicted that, and President Obama sided with Nuland; she had been instructed to contradict Kerry on this.

One can only speculate as to why Poroshenko has now said that there is no way he will carry through the “special administrative status” provision, provision #11, of the Minsk II Accords. That provision demands specifically what Poroshenko now specifically rejects: “Constitutional reform in Ukraine, with a new constitution to come into effect by the end of 2015, the key element of which is decentralisation (taking into account peculiarities of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, agreed with representatives of these districts), and also approval of permanent legislation on the special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in accordance with the measures spelt out in the attached footnote,[note 1] by the end of 2015.”

Putin does not want Donbass to be in Russia, but Poroshenko now refuses to grant Donbass “special administrative status” within Ukraine. The only way that Poroshenko wants to take back Donbass is by force. On April 30th, Poroshenko had said, “The war will end when Ukraine regains Donbass and Crimea,” and onMay 11th, he said, “I have no doubt, we will free the [Donetsk] Airport [in Donetsk oblast], because it is our land.”

On August 27th, Edward Basurin, a military official of the Donetsk People’s Republic had announced “UAF Massively shelling DPR — Drastic Deterioration,” saying that, “The fascists have used heavy artillery prohibited by the Minsk Agreements against the civilian areas of Aleksandrovka and Marinka. The outskirts of Donetsk have been struck.” Thus, when Poroshenko, two days later, announced that he would not continue with the Minsk II accords, Putin immediately got back into direct contact with Hollande and Merkel, to ask whether they still fully supported the accords.

The result is a now-open split between the U.S. and Europe, over Ukraine. The split between Nuland and Kerry is now a split between the U.S. and Europe; or, as Nuland had said on 4 February 2014 while providing her subordinate in Kiev her instructions about the preparations and outcome of the coup: “F—k the EU!” Perhaps EU officials are getting increasingly cold feet about the entire matter, now a year-and-a-half later.

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

Palestinian authorities found liable in a high-profile lawsuit over Americans killed in terrorist attacks must pay $10m in cash – and an additional $1m monthly payment while the case is on appeal – to secure the hundreds of millions awarded by a jury, a US judge said on Monday.

The Guardian/Al Ray reports that, in ordering the security payment, Manhattan federal judge George B. Daniels said he had given significant thought to a motion filed this month, by the US State Department, to argue a high bond which could threaten the stability of the region by straining the cash-strapped Palestinians.

The payment also mirrored the amount proposed by a lawyer for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), who argued that forcing the Palestinians to front an expensive bond payment would have dire human costs for the people living in the territories.

“Respectfully, a million means a lot to the Palestinian Authority,” Mitchell Berger told the judge, noting that the amount could cover welfare for 9,500 families or build one school in Gaza.

Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer representing victims and survivors of attacks that killed 33 people and injured hundreds more, had asked that the Palestinians pay $20m, describing the ordered payment as a “rounding error” for them. He has said the Palestinian Authority has more than enough funds to make a higher bond payment, arguing it spends $60m annually on paying Palestinians held in Israeli prisons.

“I’m disappointed in the amount,” he said. “I’m eager to get the appellate process completed.” If the Palestinians pay $10m to the court by next month and then continue to make $1m monthly payments, the jury-awarded damages will not be collected until the appeals court rules in the case, Daniels said.

A jury awarded $218.5m in damages this year in a lawsuit brought by victims and survivors of a series of bombings and shootings in Israel from 2002 to 2004. The damages were automatically tripled by the US Anti-Terrorism Act.

Lawyers for the Palestinians have vowed to appeal.

SELECTED ARTICLES

This headline in the Guardian is completely accurate: West Point professor calls on US military to target legal critics of war on terror.

But it hardly covers to content of the 95-page paper being reported on: see the PDF.

The author makes clear that his motivation is hatred of Islam. He includes the false myth of origins of Western Asian violence toward the United States lying in antiquity rather than in blowback. He includes the lie, now popular on all sides, of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

He announces, after the recent U.S. losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, that U.S. armies always win. Then he admits that the U.S. is losing but says this is because of insufficient support for the wars and for making the wars about an “economic system, culture, values, morals, and laws.”

The key weapon in this war, he says, is information. U.S. crimes are not the problem; the problem, he writes, is any information distributed about U.S. crimes — which information is only damaging because the United States is the pinnacle of support for the rule of law. It wouldn’t matter if you spread news about crimes by some more lawless nation. But when you share news about crimes by the United States it hurts the U.S. cause which is upholding the rule of law and leading the world to lawfulness. The United States is the all-time world champion of the rule of law, we’re told, in a 95-page screed that never mentions the Kellogg-Briand Pact and only belatedly brings up the United Nations Charter in order to pretend that it permits all U.S. wars.

You can pack a lot of existing lies about U.S. wars and some new ones into 95 pages. So, for example, Walter Cronkite lost the Tet Offensive (and by the logic of the rest of this article, should have been immediately murdered on air). The mythical liberal media is busy reporting on the U.S. killing of civilians, and the worst voices in public discourse are those of treasonous U.S. lawyers. They are the most damaging, again, because the United States is the preeminent leader of lawibidingness.

The treasonous antiwar lawyers number 40, and the author hints that he has them on a list. Though whether this is a real list like Obama’s kill list or something more like McCarthy’s is not clear.

I lean toward the latter, primarily because the list of offenses run through to fill up 95 pages includes such an array that few if any lawyers have been engaged in all of them. The offenses range from the most modest questioning of particular atrocities to prosecuting Bush and Cheney in court. Nobody doing the latter has any voice in U.S. corporate media, and a blacklist for Congress or for the U.S. Institute of “Peace” would hardly be needed if created.

The 40 unnamed treasonous scholars, their supposed crimes include:

• failing to concede that violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict by Muslims permit the waiving of those laws for the U.S. government;
• interpreting the supposed standards of “distinction” and “proportionality,” which the author admits are totally open to interpretation, to mean something the author doesn’t like;
• opposing lawless imprisonment and torture;
• opposing murder by drone;
• supporting the supposed duty to warn people before you kill them;
• counting dead bodies (which is too “macabre” even though the U.S. is supposedly devoted to “minimizing civilian casualties” not to mention Western scientific superiority);
• upholding laws; pointing out facts, laws, or counterproductive results;
• filing suits in court;
• or criticizing war advocates.

The heart of the matter seems to be this: opposing war amounts to supporting war by an enemy. And, nonetheless, among the reasons offered to explain CLOACA joining the enemy are “anti-militarism,” and “pernicious pacifism.” So actual opposition to war drives people to oppose war, which amounts to supporting war for the enemy. I think I’ve got it.

The prescriptions to heal this illness center on waging total war. The author proposes both dropping nuclear bombs and capturing hearts and minds. No doubt as part of his leading support for lawfulness, he demands that there be no restraint on U.S. warmaking against Muslims. That means no limit in time or place, a rewriting of any laws of war by the U.S. military, and no trust in the “marketplace of ideas.” The U.S. must use PSYOPS, must impose loyalty oaths, must fire disloyal scholars from their jobs, must prosecute them for “material support of terrorism” and for treason, and must proceed to murder them in any time and place.

I suppose that when I point out that this illustrates the madness of militarism I should breathe a deep sigh of relief that I have no law degree.

A new TV series in which Russia occupies Norway and seizes its oil fields has been criticized by the Russian Foreign Ministry, with the Russian embassy in Oslo labelling it as reminiscent of the “worst traditions of the Cold War.”

A new Norwegian TV series in which Russia occupies the Nordic country and takes control of its oil fields has been described by Russia’s Foreign Ministry as being “in the worst traditions of the Cold War” and representing a “non-existent threat from the east.”

The series is to be launched by the largest Norwegian independent television channel TV2, the local media outlet LO News reports.

Events in the TV show evolve around the invasion of Norway by the Russian army – backed by the European Union – after environmental radicals come to power in the Scandinavian country and stop its oil industry.

According to the script, Russia occupies the country and subsequently seizes its oil fields.

The announcement of the TV series has already caused a negative reaction at the Russian Foreign Ministry, the BBC reports.

The Russian embassy in Norway has expressed regret at the upcoming premiere.

“Although the authors painstakingly emphasize the fictional nature of the plot, allegedly having nothing to do with reality, the film is about very real countries, and Russia, unfortunately, is given the role of the aggressor,” the embassy said in statement.

Historian Bjorn Ditlef Nystad, Associate Professor of the University of Oslo, said in an interview with the television channel that the TV show is offensive to residents of Norway, liberated by the Soviet Union from German occupation in 1944.

“Such shows have never been made anywhere. Perhaps only in the United States during the Cold War – and still it is doubtful. I am sure that Norwegians will be shocked at the release of this film to the screen, and it clearly will not improve relations with Russia,” said Nystad.

First published in Russian by RBC Daily.

Tony Blair’s advisers were fond of remarking as war approached, it would all be forgotten in a few weeks. Some hope.

Tony Blair could have been forgiven for thinking, back in 2002 and 2003 when he was planning the Iraq war, that nearly 13 years later it would all be forgiven and forgotten.

He thought that he could ride out an unprecedented level of opposition outside parliament as millions took to the streets, school students struck, protestors blocked roads and bridges.

He also cajoled, bullied and deceived Labour MPs in order to get them to vote for war, and won a comfortable majority by relying on the Tories, despite huge rebellion among his own ranks.

As his advisers were fond of remarking as war approached, it would all be forgotten in a few weeks, once Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

Yet there are thundering echoes of the Iraq war at the centre of British politics, all these years later. It has defined a generation. It continues to weigh on politics for several reasons.

Firstly of course because the war in Iraq has never gone away, with Britain and the US now bombing the country against ISIS, over a decade after Saddam Hussein was executed.

As the newsreader Jon Snow wrote in a recent blog, the sight of ISIS carrying out horrific acts serves to somehow remind millions that the war helped to create a hell in Iraq from which it still cannot awake. http://t.co/Gtk2aCcGCK

Secondly there is no resolution to questions raised by the war. The Chilcot report still has no finish date, nearly five years after taking its final evidence. Many in any case are sceptical of an inquiry carried out by the establishment for the establishment, and fear that there will be no justice for those who suffered in the war.

Already families of soldiers who died are threatening legal action against Chilcot.

Thirdly it remains a live political issue. In the election only a few months ago, the received wisdom was that no one was interested in foreign affairs, and that the war no longer influenced opinion.

It is now clear that the politicians were not interested in discussing it, but many people were. The Jeremy Corbyn campaign is proof of that. Many of those attracted to his rallies are young people for whom the war was defining issue, and older people who stopped voting for or being members of Labour because of Blair’s warmongering.

A recent set of polling figures illustrates the importance of the war in Corbyn supporters’ thinking. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/

And much of the right wing criticism of Corbyn focuses on his foreign policy.

Jeremy Corbyn’s announcement that if he bacomes leader of the Labour party he would apologise on behalf of the party whose then leader took Britain into an illegal war, lying in the process to parliament and the country.

An apology is necessary. But what will be even more significant to the families and loved ones of up to a million Iraqis who died, and those of the British soldiers sent to kill and be killed, is if those responsible for one of the worst war crimes in recent history, are held to account in a court of law, as Jeremy Corbyn thinks they should be.

Jeremy Corbyn: All those responsible for the illegal Iraq war should stand trial for war crimes

Source: Stop the War Coalition

“While Europe is squabbling, people are dying.”

Alexander Betts, New York Times, Aug 29, 2015.

It is the talk on European lips, the noisy attention commandeered on the media stands. Dead refugees; desperation about those fleeing and fears about those coming. There are suffocations in trucks; there are continued drownings, some 2,500 having perished in the Mediterranean this year alone.

The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has made it clear that European interior ministers ought to look into “rapid changes to the asylum system”.

The front is far from united, a curious thing, given the EU tendency towards heavy desk-inspired bureaucratisation. There may well be standards about sausage content, regulations on spirit content, and the size of apples, but when it comes to assessing asylum seekers, countries of origin in terms of conflict, and processing, no set standard can be spoken of. The closest is the Common European Asylum system, but this remains a phantom assortment of rules that do not generally get implemented.

From without, Europe is being seemingly withered by a human flow it should be able to better manage. There is much in the way of buck passing, largely by states who simply do not have the bucks to begin with. Countries operate in open defiance of the Dublin Regulation, which states that responsibility for examining an asylum seeker’s claim lies with the first EU country the migrant reaches.

The result is one of often indiscriminate passage: the status of refugees is less relevant than making sure that the individuals in question are passed through to their next port of call. The assessment is significant in so far as genuine asylum cases are not deemed of equal standing to those who flee for purely economic reasons. In truth, the distinction is not always easy to make. Poverty and war tend to keep dire company.

This puts destination countries, often the richer ones, in a pickle. Germany has shown itself to be open to great numbers of asylum seekers (800,000 refugees are anticipated this year), but the will of the electorate is waning on that score. There is much finger pointing – some countries are deemed to be shirking their obligations. Countries such as Denmark, who have previously had generous intakes, are proving glacial over the issue. Nationalist politics is biting.

Other states are proving to be even eccentric in their responses to the problem. The Slovakians are playing a different game, one well worn from the history of selectiveness. Only desperate Christians will be admitted in the refugee mix – government officials are, after all, not interested in mosques, or what such creations entails. “We could take 800 Muslims,” noted Interior ministry spokesman Ivan Netik, “but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?”[1]

Hungary has made it clear where it stands, unilaterally taking the measure to hole off its border with Serbia. At present, construction of a 110 mile fence continues unabated. Police have been deployed just to make sure there are no strays.

Just to add another dimension to the situation, EU foreign and defence ministers are considering deploying the military against vessels used by people smugglers to transport their human cargo. Again, the human cargo is seen to be as threatening as the people who smuggle it. Asylum, in other words, cannot be facilitated with such “business models”.

“I think we should try… to come to some agreement with [the Libyan authorities] so that we can send boats back into a harbour, and have some way of disabling them, or disable them at sea and send the people back to shore,” suggested Admiral Lord West, former head of the UK’s Royal Navy.

Across Europe, the issue is less what refugee statuses matter, than what religion they possess. This is the Jewish refugee replay from the 1930s – limiting intake on the basis of allowing proper refugees. Suffering is not the criteria; identity is. Behind every sympathetic admission is a resentful counter.

All in all, conflation of categories is the ultimate problem. Migrants and asylum seekers are deemed the same thing. Refugee protocols are left on the back burner. Even news reports do not make the distinction. Tens of thousands of people are on the move like an unstoppable mass.

Generally speaking, when it comes to the specifics of asylum seekers, EU member states are not reaching their targets. And when it comes to funding rescue operations, EU states are simply not pulling their weight. While there was a tripling of EU funding to the tune of 120 million in April, it does not come close to the Mare Nostrum mission which was abandoned by Italy after states such as the UK claimed it unsustainable.

While Europe festers in disagreement, the numbers of the desperate, and the dead, continue to grow. As do the vocal populists, who fear a loss of living standards and the assertiveness of Islam. The mess is getting more entangled, and promises to get worse before it gets better.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33986738

 

In the period before the 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) waged a campaign to secede and establish an independent Kosovo dominated by Albanians and purged of every other ethnic group. In October 1998, KLA spokesman Bardhyl Mahmuti spelled the KLA’s vision: “We will never change our position. The independence of Kosovo is the only solution…We cannot live together [with Serbs]. That is excluded.”

Once NATO’s war came to an end, the KLA set about driving out of Kosovo every non-Albanian and every pro-Yugoslav Albanian it could lay its hands on. The KLA left in its wake thousands of looted and burning homes, and the dead and dying.

Two months after the end of the war, I visited Hotel Belgrade, located on Mt. Avala, a short distance outside of Belgrade. Those who had been driven from their homes in Kosovo were housed in hotels throughout Yugoslavia, and in this one lived Serbian refugees.

The moment I entered the hotel, the sense of misery overwhelmed me. Children were crying, and the rooms were packed with people. The two delegation members who accompanied me and I were shown all three floors, and the anger among the refugees was so palpable I felt I could reach out in the air and touch it. Nearly everyone here had a loved one who had been killed by the Kosovo Liberation Army. All had lost their homes and everything they owned.

Initially, many of them refused to talk with us, and one refugee demanded of me in a mocking tone, “Can you get my home back?” It was not until a while later that we discovered that due to a misunderstanding, some of the refugees thought the NATO commander of the attack on Yugoslavia, Wesley Clark, had sent us there. We were quick to correct that misapprehension, and then people were more inclined to talk with us. There was still, however, some residual reluctance based on three prior experiences these refugees had with Western visitors, all of whom had treated them with arrogance and contempt. A reporter from the Washington Post was said to have been particularly abusive and insulting.

Several refugees were too upset to talk. The eyes of one woman and her son still haunt me. I could see everything in their eyes – all that they had suffered.

We climbed the stairs to the third floor and began our interviews there. A family of seven people were crowded into the first room we stopped at. We were told that five of them slept at night on the two beds, and the other two on the floor. Goran Djordjevich told us his family left Kosovo on June 13. “We had to leave because of the bandits. They threatened to kill us, so we had to leave. The moment NATO came we knew that we would have to leave.” After having talked with Roma and pro-Yugoslav Albanian refugees on earlier occasions, his family’s story was a familiar one to us by now, in that threats from KLA soldiers had prompted a hasty departure.

“We not only had a house, but also our farm and our property,” Djordjevich continued. “We just let the cattle free and we fled. I drove the tractor from our village to Belgrade for four nights and five days. When our army withdrew and NATO came in, we followed the army. You know, the Albanian bandits were there all the time in the surrounding forest and the moment NATO advanced, they just joined them and started terrorizing us. They were shooting at us but we were the lucky ones because we were with the army; so we were safer, but the ones who left later were in jeopardy. Very soon after we left our house they came to the village and burned the whole village, razing it to the ground. They were firing and burning everything.”

One young man who appeared to be about twenty years-old would not give his name, but spoke to us in halting English. “The American leader is very bad. He killed too many children. Too many bombs. Too many old men. He’s guilty for too much death. I was in Kosovo when the American Air Force bombed and killed our children. They wanted to kill our children; not just our soldiers. They wanted to kill our people. For them it was just a game”

The young man witnessed a startling development when he encountered NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR). “When our soldiers, our boys, started to withdraw from Kosovo, KFOR came in. The first soldiers were American soldiers and German soldiers. They took the weapons from the Serbian people, and in front of our eyes, gave them to the Albanian people to kill the Serbian people. We saw that.” I asked, “You saw KFOR turning arms over to the KLA?” The youth replied, “Yes. And giving them to KLA terrorists.”

At the end of the hall, a family of eight was packed into a single room, their mattresses arranged side-by-side from one end of the room to the other. An eighty year-old man reclined on a mattress, his cane nearby. His silence conveyed an aura of deep sorrow. Mitra Dragutinovich said they left Kosovo on June 11. “We knew that the moment the army left Kosovo, then the KLA would take over. The terrorists started threatening, killing, and shooting. Many people were wounded. Our cousin is a pediatrician, and an Albanian woman came to his office with a child and took a gun from her trousers and wounded him, He lost a kidney. Pointing to the eighty year-old man, she said, “The pediatrician who was wounded is his grandson.”

A woman approached, and with rising emotion addressed us in a sharp tone. “Why did the Americans and the Germans come? Why did they come? Did they come to protect us, or did they come to massacre us, to drive us from our homes, to violate our women, and to kill our children? I can’t believe that someone who had first bombed you for three months, every day and for 24 hours, that after that he will come to protect you. I wonder how [US President] Clinton can’t be sorry for the children at least. Are there children in your country? Does he know what it means to be a child? You know, we could retaliate. We could also organize terrorist actions and kill your children in the United States. But we are people with a soul. We would never, never, do that to any American child, because we are people with a soul.”

I asked what life had been like in her village during the bombing, and she answered, “It was awful. We were frightened. We were in our country. We were on our soil. But now, we are no longer on our soil, because we are occupied down there. Whoever they are, be they Americans, British, Germans, French, let them take care of their own problems at home and we shall deal with our problems here, in our country, because this is our country.”

We returned to the first floor, where we found a small crowd gathered in the lobby. Nikola Cheko was from Velika Hocha, near Orahovac. He had a strikingly expressive manner of speaking that I found quite moving, injecting each word with intense and sincere feeling. “We were surrounded from the very beginning of the aggression on March 24. We were surrounded by the Albanians. No electricity. No water. No bread. None of the conditions necessary for life. No one is taking care of us. KFOR: Nothing! They couldn’t care less for poor Serbs. They think we are stupid farmers; we’ll survive somehow and no one needs us, so KFOR simply forgets us. It’s a shame. It’s a shame for KFOR, for the United States, for Great Britain, for France, for Germany, for NATO, and all the big powers of the world. We are all human beings. We have the right to live. The nationality, the race and the religion are not important at all. A human being should first be a human being. A true human being is the one who is ready to help the victim in need. I think that KFOR should open its eyes and see what’s going on down there and behave according to Resolution 1244 and the documents signed by our Yugoslav representatives and the UN representatives in Kumanovo. In Kosovo, it’s not only Velika Hocha that is in trouble. There are many, many villages where people are absolutely in great need and dying. It’s high time that we become human beings and behave like human beings in the first place.”

Emotions in the room were running quite high and it took considerable prodding and encouragement to get anyone else to talk. My entreaties were met with silent rejection and it was at this point that our translator discovered that everyone thought that NATO general Wesley Clark had sent us. Once our translator cleared up that matter, the people were still disinclined to speak.

A woman in her thirties shouted out, “I don’t want to talk because no one will help. Two of my brothers have been kidnapped.” It was an opening, and I explained that the American people were unaware of what was happening, and that is why we wanted these interviews. Her name was Biljana Lazich, from Sopin, and pretty soon she began to talk more freely. “You know, we are all dressed in black [for mourning]. When Kosovo was part of Serbia and when our army was there, the KLA took my brothers prisoner. They were farmers and they were kidnapped from their homes. We didn’t hear anything from them for a whole year. My mother did everything possible and impossible, through the tracing service of the Yugoslav Red Cross and International Red Cross. The International Red Cross informed us that my brothers were alive and that they would be exchanged. It was in July last year, ten days after they had been taken prisoner.”

But nothing happened. Months passed and one day Lazich’s mother visited William Walker, who had been installed at U.S. insistence as head of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission. The ostensible purpose of the OSCE mission was to reduce the level of conflict between the Yugoslav security forces and the KLA, but the signed agreement applied only to Yugoslavia. The KLA was not part of the agreement, and was free to run wild. Walker packed the mission with CIA agents, who were busy marking targets for the impending NATO attack and providing military training to the KLA. Shortly before departing Kosovo, they handed communications and satellite global positioning equipment to the KLA.

Walker was unresponsive to the pleas, Biljana Lazich told us, and “didn’t say anything.” He was just “beating around the bush,” and “nothing happened.”

Life during the bombing was “awful, awful,” she continued. “We were frightened, both of the bombs coming from the sky and of the KLA. Before the war and the bombing, we had good relations with our neighbors. But when the bombing started, we knew what was in store for us, because we knew the intent of the KLA. We were afraid of the KLA and we wouldn’t allow our kids to leave our houses. They were all locked inside. We didn’t allow the children to play outside at all. We were particularly afraid for the children. The situation was unbearable! We had to flee, to save the children at least.”

Lazich introduced her mother-in-law, Dobrila Lazich, who told us what the KLA had done to her brother’s 13-year-old son in September 1998. The boy “came to see his relatives. First, he came to see one aunt and uncle and then he went to visit the other aunt and uncle, and between the two houses he was kidnapped and killed.” The boy’s mother was reluctant to talk to us, but her relatives pushed her forward and she spoke in a barely audible voice. Her name was Stana Antich and she told us how she sought help from William Walker, but he would not do anything.

At this point, Biljana stepped forward and interjected, “The boy was only 13-years-old. How could he be guilty to anyone? He’s just 13. I have a brother-in-law who was beaten to death, in Dragobilje.” The OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission “knew they were taken prisoner and they communicated to us that they were alive and well, but finally we got their dead bodies.” A third man “was returned alive, but unconscious and very severely beaten.”

Despite some honest members, as a general rule nothing could have been expected from the leadership of an OSCE mission that was riddled with CIA agents. I asked the question that I already could guess the answer to. What did the OSCE Verification mission do in response to these murders? “Nothing,” Biljana responded. “Nothing. They were just sitting idle, waiting for them to beat them to death. They didn’t intervene. They didn’t come to help us. They just came to help the KLA.” Biljana spoke of how people disappeared or were killed outright. “The whole world knew that, but no one wanted to condemn the KLA for these crimes. They put all blame on the Serbian police, constantly accusing them of persecuting the Albanians.”

Dostena Filipovich appeared to be in her sixties and wore a scarf over her head. She told us how she had sent her three children out of Kosovo to ensure their safety. “My husband and I, as elderly people, stayed back to protect and defend the house. Since there were few Serbs who stayed behind in our village, some Albanians started molesting us, threatening and firing guns in front of our windows, so we decided to leave our village. We took only hand luggage and our cow and went to a neighboring village. We have only what we are wearing. We had a lot of poultry. We had a lot of cattle. We didn’t let them loose. We just locked them in the stable and the chicken coop, expecting to return. You remember I said that we decided to go to another Serbian village, but when we arrived there, the people were also fleeing. Since the roads were jammed, we couldn’t move fast and we wanted to go to Brecovica but the roads were so jammed we couldn’t move from Prizren. Even though KFOR was in Prizren, the KLA attacked us in Prizren, firing on our column.” I asked, “And KFOR did nothing?” The tone of Filopovich’s response indicated that she was still astonished to that day. “Nothing! Nothing! Just watching and laughing, watching and laughing.”

The column of refugees eventually made their way to another Serbian village to stay overnight, but at 3:00 AM they heard gunfire in the surrounding area and decided to leave. They arrived at another village, populated by both Serbs and Albanians. “When we arrived in that village, three KLA soldiers wearing different colors of caps came, together with KFOR.” Nevertheless, the refugees spent two nights in the village. “Serbs were not allowed to stand guard. Only local Albanians were allowed to stand guard. Then KFOR called all the Serbian men to surrender their weapons to KFOR. KFOR then handed all the weapons over to the KLA.” Once that happened, it was clear to the refugees that they would have to leave. “KFOR organized our column, one tank in front and the other in back. And then we noticed a lorry full of Albanians came. They were our neighbors. They smeared their faces so as not to be recognized, but we recognized them all the same. They wanted to plunder us. To be honest, KFOR did not allow them to do so. We were honest people. We didn’t have trouble with the neighbors. We didn’t take anything from anyone, so our consciences were quite clear. We thought that we should be protected, as honest people.”

First KFOR collected all out weapons, so we were easy prey. Before my eyes, the KLA killed my uncle. Actually, they slaughtered him with an axe and left his body. They didn’t bury him. They cut him into pieces. KFOR simply doesn’t prevent the KLA from doing anything. They can do anything. They just simply sit and watch and do nothing. We were not allowed to protect ourselves. We were driven out of our own homes. We were unarmed. We were at the mercy of the KLA terrorists. They had support from KFOR. They gave them arms. They took the arms from us. We left our homes with our naked souls and nothing else.

I asked if anyone else would like to be interviewed and all declined. There was a young girl in the room, aged around 12 or 13. A couple of people told me that the KLA had murdered her father. Several people encouraged her to talk but she vigorously shook her head no. They asked the girl again, and she broke into tears. With a loud, heart-rending sob, she spun around and fled down the hallway, leaving behind her a trail of echoing cries. Shaken, I stood there in silent contemplation when someone jarred me back to awareness by asking if I wanted the girl brought back. I could not inflict that on her and said no.

Bozhe Antich was sitting on a folding chair. Before he uttered a word, one could sense that terrible things had happened to him. He spoke out, “I have experienced a great tragedy.” We walked over to listen to his story. “It’s difficult for me to talk. I am from the village of Sopin, in the municipality of Suva Reka. The KLA killed my brother’s son. He was 42 years old. They killed him because he was a Serb. They killed my best friend, a mechanic. His name is Ranchel Antich, from Ljeshane village. They also killed Dr. Boban Vuksanovich, director of the health center in Suva Reka. They also killed my daughter-in-law’s brother, 32-years-old, just because he was a Serb. He was killed 200 meters from his home. They were not in politics. They were ordinary workers, mechanics. They went to the monastery to repair a machine there, and the road was bombed. They were on the way to the Holy Trinity Monastery, a very old monastery from the 14^th century. They left Suva Reka, on the way to repair the machine. It’s four kilometers from Suva Reka. The KLA ambushed them, first killing the driver of the car. Then they pushed the car down over a cliff. Several of the passengers in the car were wounded. The terrorists were not satisfied with killing the driver, the doctor and my cousin. They wanted to kill everyone in the car. So when the car came to a stop at the bottom of the hill, they followed the car and killed my other nephew with sixteen bullets in his body.”

This incident took place during the NATO war. Not long after the murders occurred, a criminal investigator visited the site and KLA soldiers killed him, too. The Holy Trinity Monastery, where Antich’s friends and family were headed the day they were killed, also met a sad fate. When KFOR entered Kosovo in mid-June 1999, KLA soldiers looted and burned the monastery, and the next month they returned and demolished it with explosives. The Holy Trinity Monastery was one of 84 churches and monasteries the KLA destroyed during its rampage in the first few months under the protective wing of NATO. Many of the buildings dated back to the Middle Ages, and some were designated by UNESCO as world historic sites. KFOR would eventually place under guard some of the more historic sites that had managed to survive, but the demolition of religious sites nevertheless continued on a sporadic basis. In March 2004, Albanian extremists launched a new pogrom, killing, beating and driving away Serbs and setting their homes ablaze. During those attacks, another 35 churches and monasteries were destroyed or damaged.

“We can’t go back as long as the KLA has KFOR protection, a shield for their murderous activities,” Bozhe Antich explained. “If someone is human, he should at least be sorry for the little children who have been murdered. Because all the children of this world are children in the first place, regardless of their religion, race, and ethnic origin. What is the future of our children now? They have no homes. They have no schools for now. We were not poor people. We had our property down there. We had houses. We had land. For example, in my case, I worked for 33 years. Now, I am a beggar. I have nothing. Our country, Serbia, is in deep economic crisis. Serbia cannot help. What is our future? All those supporting these criminal activities, committed by Albanian terrorists, should face the truth and see in us human beings, because we are human beings.”

Sava Jovanovich presented photographs of his demolished home in Kosovo. Scrawled on one wall was ‘UCK’, the initials for ‘KLA’ in the Albanian language. Another graffiti message read, “Return of Serbs prohibited.” Jovanovich and his four brothers lived in houses that were next to each other. They left Kosovo on June 11 and 12. “It was an exodus,” Sava recalled. “My father decided to protect the houses. I asked about my father, and they told me, “We don’t know anything. We have no news from him. We don’t know.” The KLA “took everything, all the wheat, and then they burned down the granary. They also plundered the wheat and corn from my brothers’ property and then burned down the building. We had about 15 cows, 20 pigs, and lots of poultry, and now we have nothing.”

The lack of news of his father’s fate distressed him, and he blamed Western intervention for the tragedy that had befallen his family. “My father remembers the stories from his grandfather, from the time when he lived while the region was still under the Ottoman Empire. And my father lived under German occupation during the [Second] World War. They didn’t have to leave their homes. Now is the first time we were forced to leave. It is worse than under the Ottomans and the Germans.”

I mentioned to him that U.S. officials were saying that members of the KLA could join the new police force being established in Kosovo. Jovanovich was startled. “This is impossible, because they hate the Serbs and they are against the Serbs. This is not possible.” But that is precisely what happened, as KLA soldiers filled the ranks of the newly formed police force in NATO-occupied Kosovo.

About one month after I returned to the United States, I read an article from the Yugoslav press. A reporter had interviewed many of the same refugees at Mt. Avala, including Sava Jovanovich. In the intervening time, Jovanovich had finally received news of his father. “I heard that Albanian robbers hanged my father, who didn’t want to leave, at his doorstep.”

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute. He is a columnist for Voice of the People, and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language.

A good cop/bad cop routine by the US and Israel was in fact a strategy to get crippling sanctions against Iran approved by the UN Security Council 

New evidence has now surfaced from former Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak that Israel came close to attacking Iran three times over the past few years – if you believe what major news media reported about the story. 

But you shouldn’t believe it. The latest story is only a continuation of the clever ploy that has been carried out by Israeli administrations from Ehud Olmert to Benjamin Netanyahu to convince the world that it was seriously contemplating war against Iran in order to pressure them toward crippling sanctions against Iran, if not military confrontation with it.

And there is even very strong circumstantial evidence that the Obama administration was consciously playing its part in a “good cop/bad cop routine” with the Israelis over the ostensible Israeli war threat until early 2012 to influence other states’ Iran policies and gain political leverage on Iran.

The latest episode in the seemingly endless story of Israel’s threat of war followed the broadcast in Israel of interviews by Barak for a new biography. The New York Times’ Jodi Rudoren reported that, in those interviews, Barak “revealed new details to his biographers about how close Israel came to striking Iran”. Barak “said that he and Mr Netanyahu were ready to attack Iran each year,” but claimed that something always went wrong. Barak referred to three distinct episodes from 2010 through 2012 in which the he and Netanyahu were supposedly manoeuvring to bring about an air attack on Iran’s nuclear programme.

But a closer look at Barak’s claims shows that in reality neither Barak nor Netanyahu were really ready to go to war against Iran.

One of the episodes occurred in 2010 when Netanyahu ordered the Israeli army to put Israeli forces on the highest possible state of alert reserved for preparation for actual war, only to be frustrated by the refusal of Israeli army chief of staff Ashkenazi to the order. But an Israeli television programme on the episode aired in a television special in 2012 suggested that the order was not intended as a prelude to war.

Although the television account was not allowed to give the date of the episode, it is consistent with what happened on 17 May, 2010, when Turkish prime minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Da Silva reached an agreement with Iran on a “fuel swap” deal. Netanyahu regarded the agreement as a manoeuvre to derail a new UN Security Council agreement on sanctions, but the government issued no public statement that day.

Barak denied on the Israeli programme that he and Netanyahu had intended to go through with an actual attack, which implied that it was to be a short-term bluff to ensure that the sanctions agreement would go through. Ashkenazi’s opposition to the order was not that it was intended to take Israel into war, but that it could easily provoke a military response from Iran.

Both Barak and Ashkenazi agreed on the programme, and moreover, that the Israeli army lacked the capability to carry out a successful strike against Iran without US involvement.

That agreement reflected a broad consensus within the Israeli security elite that Israel could not carry out a successful operation against Iran without the full involvement of the United States. Nevertheless, that elite believed that the threat was necessary to pressure the rest of the world to act on Iran. As Yossi Alpher, a former aide to Barak, told me in 2012, most retired national security officials were totally opposed to an attack on Iran, but they remained silent because they did want to “spoil Bibi’s successful bluster”.

A second episode to which Barak refers to in his interviews involves his demanding that the United States postpone the joint military exercise planned for Spring 2012, which he now says he did in order to be able to order an attack on Iran during that period without implicating the United States in the decision. But the postponement was announced in mid-January 2012, in plenty of time for Barak to plan the strike against Iran – if that is indeed what he and Netanyahu had intended. Instead, it didn’t happen, and Barak offers no real explanation, commenting that they were “still unable to find the right moment”.

The Obama administration pretended to be alarmed about Netanyahu’s readiness to attack. But Obama was actually playing along with the Israeli strategy in order to line up support for a more aggressive regime of sanctions and then to put pressure on Iran to enter into negotiations aimed at closing down its enrichment programme.

Gary Samore, Obama’s adviser on WMD, had openly espoused the notion before taking that job that the United States should exploit an Israeli threat to attack Iran to put pressure on the Iranians over their nuclear programme. At a Harvard University symposium in September 2008, Samore opined that the next administration would not want to “act in a way that precludes the [Israeli] threat, because we’re using the threat as a political instrument”.

The Obama administration’s policy toward Iran clearly applied that Samore strategy early and often. Within weeks of his arrival in the White House, on 1 April, 2009, Obama’s Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and the Commander of CENTCOM David Petraeus both commented publicly that Israel was bound to attack Iran within a matter of a few years at most, unless Iran came to heel on its nuclear programme.

And in mid-November 2009, Obama sent Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader of the White House staff to Beijing to warn the Chinese that the United States could not restrain Israel from an attack on Iran much longer unless the Security Council adopted a strong package of tough economic sanctions against Iran.

That diplomatic exploitation of the Israeli threat came seven months after Haaretz reported in May 2009, that CIA director Leon Panetta had just obtained a commitment from Netanyahu and Barak that they would not take military action without consulting Washington first. That commitment reflected a reality that most senior national security officials accepted – that Israel could attack Iran without US cooperation.

What happened in late 2011 and early 2012 was a “good cop/bad cop” routine by Panetta and Barak at a historical juncture when the United States and Israel were cooperating closely in a strategy to get crippling sanctions against Iran approved in the UN Security Council while pressuring Iran to begin negotiating on its enrichment programme.

Panetta’s role in the routine was to wring his hands over alleged indications that Israel was intent on a strike in the spring. But Panetta’s interview with David Ignatius in early February 2012 in which he warned of the “strong likelihood” of an Israeli attack in “April, May or June” included a clear give-away that the real purpose of his warning was to gain diplomatic leverage on Iran. He suggested to the Iranians that there were two ways to “dissuade the Israelis from such an attack”: either Iran could begin serious negotiations on its nuclear programme, or the United States could step up its own cyber-attacks against Iran.

Later that year, of course, Obama would break dramatically with Netanyahu’s strategy. But despite that clear indication in early 2012 that Panetta was playing a game that suited the interests of both administrations, consumers of the world’s commercial news media were led to believe that Barak and Netanyahu were on the brink of war.

Barak himself is still peddling that same warmed-over, patently false tale of near war-war with Iran. And in one more indicator of the degree to which the media parrot the Israeli line on Iran, they are still reporting it as unquestioned fact today.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. 

Judiciary Branch Has Self-Abolished

The US no longer has a judiciary. This former branch of government has transitioned into an enabler of executive branch fascism.

Privacy is a civil liberty protected by the US Constitution. The Constitution relies on courts to enforce its prohibitions against intrusive government, but if the executive branch claims (no proof required) “national security,” courts kiss the Constitution good-bye.

Federal judges are chosen by the executive branch. The senate can refuse to confirm, but that is rare. The executive branch chooses judges who are friendly to executive power. This is especially the case for the appeals courts and the Supreme Court. The Justice (sic) Department keeps tabs on district court judges who rule against the government, and these judges don’t make it to the higher courts. The result over time is to erode civil liberty.

Recently a three-judge panel of the US Appeals Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Security Agency can continue its mass surveillance of the US population without showing cause. The panel avoided the constitutional question by ruling on procedural terms that NSA had a right to withhold the information that would prove the plaintiffs’ case.

By refusing to extend the section of the USA PATRIOT Act—a name that puts a patriotic sheen on Orwellian totalitarianism—that gave carte blanche to the NSA and by passing the USA Freedom Act, Congress attempted to give NSA’s spying a constitutional patina. The USA Freedom Act allows the telecom companies to spy on us and collect all of our communications data and for NSA to access the data by obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. The Freedom Act protects constitutional procedures by requiring NSA to go through the motions, but it does not prevent telecom companies from invading our privacy in behalf of NSA.

No one has ever explained the supposed threat that American citizens pose to themselves that requires all of their communications to be collected and stored by Big Brother. If the US Constitution was respected by the executive branch, Congress, the judiciary, law schools and bar associations, there would have been a public discussion about whether Americans are most threatened by the supposed threat that requires universal surveillance or by the loss of their constitutional protections. We all know what our Founding Fathers’ answer would be.

Florida Government Defies Voters, Misuses Earmarked Funds

By allocating funds set aside by law for the purchase of land and wildlife habitat to other purposes, Florida Republicans have negated the Water and Land Conservation Amendment that Floridians passed with a 75% majority last November. The amendment requires that one-third of the funds produced by real estate stamp taxes be used for conservation purposes.

Conservation runs counter to the interests of real estate developers and polluters who have done so much to destroy Florida’s unique environment. Real estate developers and polluters are major Republican contributors.

Faced with the people’s will, the Republican government is claiming that proper uses of the fund are to pay salaries for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, to teach best management practices for privately owned lands, and to pay private agricultural operations to retain the pollution that results from their operations on their own property.

In typical Republican fashion, money legally mandated for purchasing public land is being used to pay state salaries and to make payments to private land owners. This is a good indication of the scant respect that American democracy has for the will of the people.

A Robot Will Take Your Job

Several recent studies conclude that robots are going to displace millions of human workers. An Oxford University study found that 47 percent of jobs are at risk. Another study concludes that one third of all jobs will be lost to robots during the next 10 years. Some claim that the net job loss will not be so large, because new jobs will be created in order to repair the robots, at least until robots learn to do this also.

Perhaps you remember the claims by economists Matthew Slaughter, Michael Porter, and other shills for jobs offshoring that moving American jobs offshore would create better and more jobs in the US. After many years I am still watching for any sign of these promised new jobs.

Despite promises to the contrary, the US economy has been halted in its tracks by jobs offshoring. US corporations have moved middle class manufacturing jobs abroad. The high speed Internet has made it possible for tradable professional skills, such as software engineering, information technology, research, design, and scan interpretations by medical doctors, to be performed offshore. This enormous giveaway of American middle class jobs and GDP to foreign countries has left the domestic economy with non-tradable service jobs.

Robotics is now attacking the remaining domestic service jobs. Robots are becoming sales assistants, providing room service to hotel guests, filling orders at delis, providing medical diagnosis, cooking and serving meals, and becoming incorporated into smart household appliances that reduce the need for electrical and repair services. All of us are familiar with customer service robots. We encounter them whenever we telephone about a bank or credit card statement or utility bill.

The unaddressed problem is: what happens to consumer demand, on which the economy depends, when humans are replaced by robots? Robots don’t need a paycheck in order to purchase food, clothes, shoes, entertainment, health care, go on vacations, or to make car, utility, credit card, rent or mortgage payments. The consumer economy has suffered from incomes lost to jobs offshoring. If robots replace yet more Americans, where does the income come from to purchase the products of the robots’ work? Any one firm’s owners and managers can benefit from lowering costs by replacing a human workforce with robots, but all firms cannot. If all firms replace their work forces with robots, the rate of unemployment becomes astronomical, and consumer demand collapses pulling down the economy.

Economists call what works in the singular but not in the plural the fallacy of composition. Keynesian macroeconomists teach that if everyone in society is thrifty with the consequence that savers save more than investors want to invest, aggregate demand falls, and with it incomes and savings. Thus, by trying to save more, savers end up with less.

With the advent of jobs offshoring and financial deregulation, the US has one of the most unequal distributions of income and wealth. As robotics patents are held by a mere handful of people, the concentration of income and wealth at the top will increase.

What kind of society would result? Will governments nationalize robotics or heavily tax the incomes of owners in order to issue monthly payments to people with which to purchase the work product of robots? What would a population living off the work of robots do with itself? Would population growth be tolerated? Or would the powerful owners of robotics use the governments that they control to reduce the surplus population?

Free market economists with their heads forever in the sand will say, “No worry, people thought that the industrial revolution would destroy the demand for labor, but industry employed ever more people.” A former MIT professor who has gone into business producing robots says robots will bring the jobs lost to offshoring home to America. But will they be jobs for humans or for robots? I am waiting to hear how robotics will expand the demand for human labor beyond a few repairmen to fix robots. And I am still waiting for the new and better jobs that offshoring promised. By the time they get here, if ever, robots will take them away.

Stock Market Supported By Corporate Buybacks

Pension funds purchase corporate bonds, and the corporations use the money to buy back their own stocks, thus driving up the price, enriching executives with bonuses and shareholders with capital gains, but leaving the company in debt. One study found that last year 95 percent of all corporate earnings were used either to pay dividends or to buy back the company’s stock. Read Mike Whitney’s report in CounterPunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/looting-made-easy-the-2-trillion-buyback-binge/

The Ship Did It

The presence of The White Lady, a four-masted Chilean sailing ship, at the Tall Ships Festival in England is being protested. Protestors believe the ship is guilty of human rights violations as the ship was allegedly the site of torture inflicted by the Pinochet government as it put down the terrorism that followed the overthrow of the Allende government. Just as guns murder, ships torture.

The torture alleged to have occurred aboard The White Lady sounds like a small town performance of the torture sanctioned by Washington and London at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and numerous secret sites. How are the American and British democracies superior to Chilean military dictatorship if the former out-tortures the latter? To my knowledge, the Pinochet regime, unlike the Bush regime, never had John Yoo write a legal memo making torture legal. This is probably why, prior to stepping down and returning Chile to constitutional democracy, Pinochet issued pardons both to the military government and to the terrorists.

Demand for Silver Outstripping Supply But Price Is Falling

On numerous occasions Dave Kranzler and I have pointed out that despite high and rising demand for physical bullion and constrained supply, the prices of gold and silver are forced down by concerted manipulation in the futures market. Silver supplies are so tight that both the US and Canadian mints have had to suspend the production and sale of silver coins. Despite supply constraints, in the manipulated futures market the price of silver has been falling, but in the physical market the price of silver coins has risen with premiums over spot raising coin prices as much as 30 percent. Regulatory authorities have brought no action against the obvious manipulation in the futures market.

It is important to the value of the fiat currencies that are being printed in profusion that gold and silver be discredited as hedges against currency depreciation. Thus, authorities turn a blind eye to the obvious manipulation, the purpose of which is to show that inflating fiat paper currencies are gaining in value relative to gold and silver.

I am awaiting the explanation from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) why it is normal for inflating fiat currencies to gain value in relation to gold and silver bullion. Kranzler and I, supported by individuals thoroughly acquainted with the bullion market, have written to the CFTC asking how it is possible for price to fall when demand is rising and supply is constrained.

We will see if a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury can get an answer.

Good-bye To Cash

If all this isn’t enough, government now wants to deprive us of cash in order to deprive us of private and unreported payments and savings. The Financial Times, Britain’s equivalent to the Wall Street Journal, has published an anonymous article advocating that cash be abolished and all transactions be digital so that authorities can know and completely control our behavior. Clearly a big push in this direction is in the works. If the authorities succeed, we will have a situation in which the privacy guaranteed by the US Constitution becomes a myth that slowly fades from memory.

Investigative reporters have discovered that IMF bailout funds intended for Ukraine have mysteriously found their way to a Cyprus bank account controlled by notorious Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi.

Japan’s Defense Ministry has asked for the country’s largest ever military budget as Tokyo seeks to boost its armed forces amid persisting territorial conflicts with China and Russia as well as concerns over Beijing’s expanding naval power.

The defense ministry on Monday requested an annual budget of 5.09 trillion yen (USD 42.38 billion) for the next fiscal year, reflecting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s efforts to build a stronger and more active military that mainly focuses on a potential intensification of tensions with China.

The key objective of Tokyo’s military build-up is said to enhance the protection of a series of southern islands that stretch from Japan’s mainland to waters near Taiwan.

If approved, the new budget would be the fourth straight hike in the nation’s annual defense budget, marking a 2.2 percent increase compared to the budget for the current fiscal year, which ends in March 2016.

This is while Abe is further pushing to revise Japan’s pacifist constitution that will likely lead to Japanese troops engaging in combat for the first time since the end of the World War II.

However, the move has proved quite unpopular across Japan and triggered a major protest rally outside the parliament on Sunday with the participation of tens of thousands of demonstrators.

The latest request for a military budget increase came after Abe’s administration decided to set aside a budget of nearly 25 trillion yen between 2014 and 2019 to spend on military drones, submarines, fighter  jets and amphibious vehicles.

On Monday, August 31st, racist fascists (nazis) who hate Russians rioted in front of Ukraine’s parliament building to demand resumption of the unlimited bombing campaign against the breakaway former Ukrainian region, Donbass, which had voted 90%+ for the neutralist Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, whose government these nazis had helped the U.S. to overthrow in February 2014. A rabidly anti-Russian government was installed in its stead, and these demonstrators want this government to violate the Minsk II accords that Ukraine had signed, and to return to full-scale war.

According to the report from Russian Television, “At least 10 special forces troops have been injured as a grenade exploded during clashes in front of the parliament in the Ukrainian capital.”

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, who won no votes from anyone in the breakaway Donbass former region of Ukraine, and who is widely hated there for bombing them, persistently asserts that he will ultimately succeed at retaking that region. He said on Saturday, August 29th, “I was elected by people to protect the integrity of Ukraine, and will do everything in my power to return the land to Ukraine.”

But his claim to be doing what the people of Ukraine want him to do on this is a lie. Here is the actual polling regarding the matter:

On 6-18 May 2015, the Ukrainian polling organization Sofia reported their poll of the Ukrainian public, as follows:

The majority (61.8%) of respondents believe that the main thing is to stop the war, even if you have to give up the occupied territories. The share of those who favor the continuation of hostilities until complete liberation of the occupied territories was 22.9%. (15.3% could not answer.)

Almost half (45.2%) of respondents consider it possible to make certain concessions in the negotiations to end the war in Donbass and normalize relations with the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, 38.6% of respondents are of the opinion that concessions must not be made. (16.2% could not answer.)

Poroshenko is doing this because Barack Obama, the man who installed the present regime in Ukraine, during a violent February 2014 coup, wants Poroshenko to continue bombing that area.

Furthermore, in the U.S., not only congressional Republicans but congressional Democrats, and the entire U.S. aristocracy, are united in this demand to slaughter the residents in Donbass. The pro-regime Kyiv Post headlined on August 29th, “Daschle: Obama should visit, US should supply arms to Ukraine,” and reported that the lobbyist, and former Democratic Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, was urging: “supplying Ukraine with $3 billion in military aid, including a mix of lethal and non-lethal weapons, a step thus far opposed by Obama as potentially prompting Russia to escalate its war against Ukraine. … Daschle thinks a $3 billion package of lethal and non-lethal assistance, touted by the Atlantic Council and Brookings Institution, is the way to go.” In other words: If the earlier bombings weren’t enough, America’s aristocracy have organized a PR campaign to do it more. As I headlined on 3 February 2015, “Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’.”

I reported on 30 August 2015, that, “U.S. Publicly Splits v. EU on Ukraine War.” EU leaders do not want yet another invasion of Donbass by Ukraine, but Obama now clearly does want it; and Poroshenko is doing what Obama says. Thus, for example, on August 27th,“Obama’s Ukrainian Forces Break Minsk Agreement: Resume Invasion.”

France’s Francois Hollande, and Germany’s Angela Merkel, are again trying to stop Obama’s war in Ukraine. But Poroshenko is taking his instructions from Obama, not from anyone in the EU. And probably the EU will, too, as usual. Today’s nazi rioting has been organized to give more ‘democratic’ legitimacy to resuming the war.

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

I had planned to write on the struggle in the US congress in which the Israel Lobby seeks to override the president’s veto. This is likely to cause a new war in the Middle East, send out a new wave of refugees, and destroy the cradle of our faith and civilization. However, the most dangerous trend we are facing springs from our arrogant desire to override the natural order of birth, life and death.

On the streets of Tel Aviv, young Filipinos or strong Sudanese push trolleys with old Jewish people. They cling to life, these old ladies. Age and race are juxtaposed: it is fine to be old, if you belong to the right race or ethnicity. Taking care of the old is a job for immigrants, refugees, and guest workers of the wrong race. Whenever I see such a trolley, I do not exult in our good care of the elderly and in our humane attitudes; I lament the fate of the Philippines and Sudan, for if these states hadn’t been devastated by us, the young women would be taking care of their own children instead of flying to the end of the world to change diapers for old Jewish ladies.

Once, the slavers had to go to Africa, hunt and seize prospective slaves and ship them to plantations. We destroyed their societies, and now the slaves are paying their own fare and competing to live in Uncle Tom’s cabin. They became indispensable for the care of old people, and we have a lot of old folks in our developed countries. This is the case where both means and purpose, the modern slave trade and the preservation of exhausted life, are equally reprehensible.

We try to live longer and longer, as if year after year of loneliness in institutions is such a wonderful benefit. Medicine can dull the Grim Reaper’s scythe, and old people seem to live forever. Our late Prime Minister, Gen. Ariel Sharon, died for all practical purposes in 2006, but his life was “saved” in a way and he lingered on in limbo until 2014. For eight long years the doctors reported: “He responds to pain”, until he was allowed to depart for his permanent abode wherever it might be.

Another Jew of renown, Lubavitscher Rebbe Schneerson, was been kept “alive” for many years, until his followers despaired of his return. Their example shines for others. My friend, a poet, fumed about why the medical system did not hospitalize his 85-year old mother right away, change her heart and other parts, make her functioning again. He did not care about the cost – a humane society should do it. Or shouldn’t it?

Taking care of the elderly has huge social costs and not all of these can be outsourced to the Sudanese. My old schoolmate deserted his wife and daughter in order to take care of his elderly mother. A good son? I wonder. Within five years, his neglected daughter got hooked on drugs and committed suicide, his forlorn wife divorced him, while his mother was still alive, still bedridden and about ninety.

We spend too much effort on preserving life, and people (or should I say we, as I approach 70) live much longer than ever before. Thanks to medicine, infants who would never survive otherwise, are kept alive. They need daily treatment and expensive drugs and operations, to carry on their sad lives, for their parents and society are convinced that life should be preserved at all cost. Aren’t we wonderful?

Not really. Our societies kill perfectly healthy children, whether by abortion or by bombing their populous countries. Five hundred thousand Iraqi children were killed by Madeleine Albright, to her satisfaction. Nearer to home, I never could understand why a Jewish child with Down’s syndrome should be kept alive at considerable expense and effort, while a healthy Palestinian child may be killed for free.

In less prosperous countries, magazines carry ads asking for help to postpone death. People with ill children, parents, spouses ask for the contribution they need to take their sick to the place of a magic cure, or to buy a deadly expensive medicine not covered by insurance. Their ads show a sweet kid or a peaceful old man, and describe his maladies and the miraculous treatment able to restore his brain, grow him a new heart or new legs for a tiny cost of so many dollars. This money could feed thousands of healthy children, or provide elementary and inexpensive medical care for many.

People of wealth do not ask for our contribution, but they also spend a lot on cures. The very rich spend enormous sums to gain immortality. They die anyway. There are rumors that the hundred-year-old billionaire David Rockefeller had had a few heart transplants. Perhaps the rumours are not true, but anyway his longevity was achieved at cost of other younger lives. Such people do consume other lives, for they make ordinary medicine for ordinary people unavailable.

Human resources are limited. A vast investment in expensive medicines and devices means less money for treating everyone with less exotic illnesses. Preserving and extending the existence of those unable to live without help (be it elderly or children or terminally ill) means less resources for everybody else. Sanctity of life for a few means death for others. There is no way to sustain unlimited medical spending for a few unless the majority is robbed of their chance to live.

This system had been denounced by Ivan Illich in his Medical Nemesis many years ago, but it has become worse since then. The root of the problem is our worship of life and fear of death. Far from being natural, this is a relatively new tendency. Previous generations knew that there are many things more important than life. They valued their soul, their honor, their integrity above the life of their body. They accepted death as an unavoidable event in one’s life, nothing to run away from. They saw flowers and trees and wild animals and learned from them.

Their world was God-centered, and in such a world, life and death of a man is a normal occurrence. They would pray for their life to last longer, but they would add, as the Orthodox Christians do even now at every Sunday service: grant me a Christian death, peaceful, without pain and shame. The Christian asks for a short time to prepare himself, to repent and to receive last rites, and if this wish is granted, he dies contented, for his death is just a transition to life eternal. People who worship life are heathens – or animals, from the Christian point of view.

Fear of death should be removed from our world. We should accept death as we accept life: with gratitude, as St. Simon the Elder did as he said: “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace”.

While ridding us of fear of death, we should also eliminate organ transplants, the modern form of cannibalism. Like in the days of Captain Cook, rich men consume the kidneys or the livers of their fellow men. Sometimes these organs are ripped from a dead person, disturbing his peace. Often kidneys are ripped out of the bodies of unfortunate debtors who are forced into this sacrifice by their creditors, or from people reduced to poverty who need to feed their children.

In Israel, body parts have been taken from Palestinians for the benefit of Jews, as we learned from the confessions of Yehuda Liss. Organs were harvested by the Kosovo Albanians from live Serbs, said Carla del Ponte, the prosecutor in the Hague. Why are we shocked by cannibalism which occurred in Papua New Guinea? We are worse.

The medieval world knew the desire to save one’s life at cost of another’s life or injury. This was done by warlocks and witches who drew a bath of innocent children’s blood for the beneficiary who wanted to preserve his or her youth beyond the allotted years. That’s why the Bible called for them to be put them to death. Modern harvesters are not any better.

We might roll medicine back to its Cuban level, where simple medical treatment is available to everyone for free, while complicated ones are just not available for anybody, including David Rockefeller. Equality of medical treatment will remind us that we all equal before death, and this is good news.

Fear of God is healthy. Fear of death is sickness; it is denial of God and of Man’s privileged place in the Universe. Our departure will suit our life. Evil people do evil things because they are certain that there is nothing after. The spiritual father of the Neo-Cons, Leo Strauss, entered acrimonious arguments (with Martin Buber inter alia) denying God. It was important for him to claim there is no reward, no punishment for our deeds. And his disciples took over the Pentagon and ignited the Middle East, sending the great wave of refugees toward Europe. Only people who deny Christ are likely to do such things.

Many people dislike the concept of human rights because it was used for the “humanitarian interventions” in Libya and Iraq. Others would argue that the concept was misused by Bush and Blair. But I reject the idea of human rights because human duties are more important, love is more important, while love of God is still more important. Human rights should not have priority before duty, love and piety.

Nowhere is this concept more misleading than in the sphere of reproductive politics. No, a woman has no right over her body, neither does a man, nor a child. Our body is on loan from God. We are not free to do with it whatever we will. Mutilation, suicide and abortion are equally evil before God.

We have no right to have children. It is a grace of God that we have them. People engaged in the surrogate motherhood business try to get children by force or by theft. Surrogate motherhood is not different from slavery in its worst form: the slave owner could beget a child with a slave girl, but he normally would not steal the child and take him away from his mother. This is what is done by the father of the surrogate child.

The traditional society had an institution of “bearing on the knees” as in the case of Jacob, Rachel and Bilhah (Genesis 30), but there the child’s real mother was not deprived of her child.

The correct question is not “should surrogate mothers be allowed to carry a child in their body for other people?” as it is sometimes presented. It is similar to a question “should one be allowed to feed one’s body to crocodiles?” Naturally, no woman would give her child away unless being forced. She can be forced by hunger or by poverty or by force.

Israel, with its huge gay community, is a big buyer of women in poor countries for their own reproduction. At first, they went to India, until the Indians decided to stop this form of slavery and child kidnapping. Then, they went to Nepal. An earthquake devastated that country, and even this disaster did not tell the people of Nepal and Israel that their behavior was utterly sinful and criminal, earning such a divine punishment.

Not only gays are buying children. Many normal couples in Israel are unable to have children, and they go to the slave trading agencies. Instead, they should ponder their own behavior and pray for forgiveness. Children are a blessing, and not everyone deserves a blessing. The Bible has many stories of barren women who repented, prayed and their prayer was answered. The Israelis should cease starving Gaza, open its harbours and borders, and God will open the wombs of their womenfolk.

They try to cheat God, but God is not a sucker. All the technical devices will not bring happiness a real, normally-born child is likely to produce.

Maria Poumier, a French scholar of surrogacy, thinks the buyers of slave children are due for a lot of unhappiness. “A purchased son is not loved in the same way as a natural one, but in the same way one loves a cat or a dog, chosen for the best pedigree; it can be sold again if unpleasant; that is called “rehoming” in the case of adopted children. International adoption is over, because too many cases of stolen children have been proven, and adopted children become unbearable with their adoptive parents when grown up, even in the best loving families”.

However, she is optimistic, hoping the slave children educated in wealthy homes will rise against those who purchased them and stole them from their enslaved “surrogate” mothers.

In her view, the surrogate agencies are making a lot of money and spend it to enlarge their base to make more money. The recent surge of gay interest has been caused by these agencies, as they consider the gays their potential clients. As surrogacy is a modern form of slave trade, Jews are the leaders in the business as they were in slaving, writes Maria Poumier.

Infertility is a very good business, she says quoting Sebastien Renault’s investigation. “That is why there is such seducing propaganda for the gay way of life, in order to make them feel the natural infertility of sodomy as a social injustice. The gays are considered as new consumers, bringing more income for the agencies”.

I think that behind their desire to make money there is a much more malicious reason: the drive for total subjugation of man, as I wrote at length elsewhere. This should be fought. There is a law in the books against kidnapping and the slave trade, and this law should be employed against the reproductive agencies.

We should take birth, life and death as they come, as was done by our ancestors. If we won’t stop this plague now, we shall see our children and grandchildren stripped for organ transplants to the rich bankers who want to live forever, if not bought and sold for the amusement of gay couples. We shall see children being manufactured and mass-produced for transplants, for war, for labour, as Aldous Huxley prophesied in his too-prescient book. God’s plans can be overridden only at a huge cost, a cost that will dwarf the override of Obama’s Iran Treaty.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

Large protests took place in Tokyo Sunday against the military legislation currently being debated in the upper house of Japan’s legislature or Diet. These demonstrations are a sign of widespread anti-war sentiment in Japan and opposition to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s backing of the US war drive against China.

Tens of thousands of people took part in the Tokyo protest outside the Diet building, with organizers estimating the crowd at 120,000. Smaller rallies took place at around 200 locations throughout Japan. In Osaka, 25,000 people gathered to denounce the legislation and the Abe government.

Various groups organized the demonstrations. Some have ties to opposition parties, such as the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). The protesters carried signs and chanted slogans, including “Peace not war,” “Scrap the bills now” and “Abe Quit!”

The legislation is comprised of two bills. One would allow the government to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) without seeking the enactment of a special law or regular extensions in the Diet. The other bill consists of 10 revisions to current laws that would permit Japan to provide military support for an ally, namely the United States.

The legislation would allow Japan to join US-led wars, notably against China. The US has encouraged Tokyo to remilitarize as part of its “pivot to Asia”—a comprehensive strategy aimed at undermining Chinese influence throughout the region and militarily encircling China. The Abe government is using the opportunity to cast off post-World War II restrictions on its armed forces in order to aggressively pursue the interests of Japanese imperialism.

DPJ leader Katsuya Okada and Japanese Communist Party (JCP) head Kazuo Shii spoke at yesterday’s protest, posturing as opponents of Abe’s militarist agenda. “The Abe administration must understand that ordinary citizens have a sense of crisis and are angry,” Okada stated. Shii declared: “We will definitely bring the bills to an end by expanding the campaign against them across Japan.”

However, the entire political establishment has lined up in one way or another with the aggressive stance taken by the US and its allies against China. While in power in 2012, the DPJ “nationalized” the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, provocatively antagonizing Beijing. At the time, the JCP criticized the DPJ for not more aggressively asserting Japan’s claims to the islands and blamed China for creating regional tensions.

The anti-war protests have steadily grown in size in recent months since the military legislation passed in the lower house in May, and are attracting a broad cross-section of people. Elderly Japanese who still recall the horrors of World War II have joined the protests, along with young people and students who typically have been marginalized from politics in Japan.

In the Japan Times, Michio Yamada, 75, recounted the experience of the devastating US fire-bombing of Tokyo in 1945. “With the advance of technologies (over the past seven decades), war is likely to be more deadly than it used to be,” he said. “In this age of nuclear weapons, you will never know how massive a death toll is going to be. The danger is far bigger than before. We should never let it happen again.”

Many participants said their opposition to war had involved them in protests for the first time. “I think there are a growing number of people like me who realized things have only turned worse under Abe’s government,” Etsuko Matsuda, 40, told the Associated Press. “I hope more people will be interested in politics and speak up.”

New protest organizations have emerged, including Mothers Against War, which started in July and has collected 20,000 signatures of people opposed to Abe’s military legislation. A 14-year-old junior high school student who protested alongside her mother stated: “I am not eligible to vote, but I don’t want to see the legislation passed because I want peace to continue in Japan.”

Another group, the Committee of Anti-War 1000, has gathered 1,650,000 signatures in opposition to the security legislation. Also prominent in the protests is Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, or SEALD, which was formed in response to the state secrecy law passed in December 2013.

A number of lawyers have criticized the military legislation as unconstitutional as it contravenes Article Nine of the country’s constitution which formally renounces war forever and declares that Japan will never maintain land, air and sea forces.

Abe chose to “reinterpret” the constitution last year, knowing full well that an amendment, which requires the passage of a national referendum, would almost certainly be defeated. Recent polls indicated that around 60 percent of respondents were outright opposed to the security legislation while upward of 80 percent expressed concerns.

The widespread hostility to the new security laws reflects the deep-rooted anti-war sentiment in Japan, particularly in the working class. In 1960, sustained mass protests erupted against the signing of a revised US-Japan Security Treaty, which allowed for the continued presence of US military bases in Japan indefinitely and committed Japan as a US military ally. The protests forced the cancellation of a planned visit to Japan by US President Eisenhower. At their height, the US military sent a helicopter to rescue the US ambassador, whose car was surrounded by protesters.

While the treaty was finally ratified, Japanese Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi felt compelled to resign. Following World War II, Kishi was initially held on suspicion of war crimes. He was an official of the Japanese puppet regime in Manchuria and a minister in the wartime cabinet of Prime Minister Hideki Tojo. Abe, who is Kishi’s grandson on the maternal side, has repeatedly declared his admiration for Kishi.

Early last week, global stock markets experienced their worst selloff since the 2008 financial crisis. At the opening of US markets on Monday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 1,000 points, its largest intraday fall in history. By the end of the week, however, the markets in the United States and Europe had staged a major rally, recovering much of what they had lost.

The reason for the turnaround in global stock markets was not hard to find. As the New York Times put it: “Once again, the Federal Reserve helped save the day for investors” who were “inspired by soothing words from an influential Fed policy maker.” By “soothing words,” the Times means the promise of further infusions of cash into the financial system, which has fueled the continual rise in equity prices.

In particular, the Times was referring to the comments of William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a key ally of Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, who said that the deterioration of the US economy made the case for raising interest rates “less compelling.”

Whether or not the Fed actually raises interests rates a small amount at its meeting next month, these statements were a pledge to do whatever it takes to keep the Wall Street asset bubble inflated.

The same day, European Central Bank Executive Board member Peter Praet made clear that the ECB stood ready to go even further by expanding its ongoing “quantitative easing” money printing operation. “There should be no ambiguity on the willingness and ability of the Governing Council to act if needed,” he declared.

These announcements compounded the moves by the Chinese central bank Tuesday to cut its target interest rate and reduce banks’ reserve requirements simultaneously, sending yet another flood of money into the economy on top of the 900 billion renminbi ($140 billion) it is estimated to have injected in June and July.

It is striking that, largely on the basis of a few hints dropped by monetary policy officials, the biggest global stock market sell-off since 2008 was at least partially reversed.

These developments underscore a basic reality of the contemporary capitalist economy: the ongoing stock market surge, which has seen all three major US stock indexes triple in value since 2009, is the product not any genuine economic “recovery,” but of continual infusions of cash from global central banks.

The present situation is the outcome of an extended process. Over the course of decades, the creation of wealth for the financial elite has become increasingly divorced from any productive activity and tied ever more directly to speculation in financial bubbles—a process most nakedly expressed in the United States. As Raymond Dalio, head of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund put it, “The money that’s made from manufacturing stuff is a pittance in comparison to the amount of money made from shuffling money around.”

Significantly, Dalio, whose wealth has tripled since 2008, this week called for the Federal Reserve to respond to growing turmoil in financial markets with a new round of quantitative easing.

In fact, so dependent has the global economy become on free money that former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers conceded in a column last week that, “Satisfactory growth, if it can be achieved, requires very low interest rates that historically we have only seen during economic crises,” concluding that “new conditions require new policies.”

Of course, the wealth of the financial elite cannot come from nowhere. Ultimately, the continual infusion of asset bubbles is the form taken by a massive transfer of wealth, from the working class to the banks, investors and super-rich. The corollary to rise of the stock market is the endless demands, all over the world, for austerity, cuts in wages, attacks on health care and pensions.

Nowhere are these processes more clear than in the US. In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, the Obama administration and the US Federal Reserve made trillions of dollars available to the banks and major financial institutions. As a result, the share of wealth held by the richest 0.1 percent of the population grew from 17 percent in 2007 to 22 percent in 2012, while the wealth of the 400 richest families in the US has doubled since 2008.

The same period has witnessed an unprecedented decline in the incomes of working people. According to the latest Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances, between 2007 and 2013 the income of a typical US household fell 12 percent. The median US household now earns $6,400 less per year than it did in 2007.

The threatened bursting of the asset bubbles is driven by concern that the easy money policy is reaching some form of denouement, that the ammunition of central banks is drying up. All the more ferocious will be the ruling elite’s assault on the working class, in the United States and internationally.

As the WSWS wrote in 2009,

“The most essential feature of a historically significant crisis is that it leads to a situation where the major class forces within the affected country (and countries) are compelled to formulate and adopt an independent position in relationship to the crisis.”

The ruling class responded to the crisis with a drive to vastly expand its own social wealth and privileges at the expense of the great majority of society. This drive will only intensify in the coming months and years. The working class must advance its own worked out program, based on an understanding of the forces that it confronts: a ruthless financial aristocracy, political institutions that are bought-and-paid for by the banks and giant corporations, and a global social system, capitalism, that has reached a historic dead-end.

Hollande, Merkel and Putin discussed the ongoing conflict in Donbass by phone. On Saturday, a Kremlin press statement said:

Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande informed (Putin) about the results of their recent meeting with the president of Ukraine in Berlin.

Vladimir Putin expressed concern about the continuing artillery bombardments of populated localities in Donbass by the Ukrainian military, the build-up of the Ukrainian Armed Forces along the line of demarcation.

The three leaders emphasized the need to establish a direct dialogue between Kiev and representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk and of lifting the financial and economic blockade of Donbass.

Media reports said the three leaders back a new ceasefire straightaway. A French statement said “(t)hey strongly supported calls for a full ceasefire on September 1 due to the start of the new school year.”

They underscored the importance of continued ceasefire, citing the plight of civilians in eastern Ukraine.

They called withdrawing heavy weapons from the contact line “an important step toward the implementation of Minsk” ceasefire terms.

Putin blamed Kiev for ongoing conflict. His web site said he “expressed concern over the continuing shelling by Ukrainian security forces of urban areas in Donbass and the build-up of Ukraine’s military forces along the demarcation line.”

He stressed the need to establish direct dialogue between Kiev and representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk and to lift the financial and economic siege of Donbass. The Russian President said that there is no alternative to a political settlement of the conflict on the basis of full implementation of the Minsk agreements, stressing the importance of holding a constitutional reform in Ukraine that would be coordinated with Donetsk and Lugansk.

Putin means what he says. He’s gone all-out to resolve ongoing conflict since Kiev launched naked aggression last year. Merkel and Hollande are allied with Washington’s imperial agenda, its endless wars of aggression.

Previous articles pronounced Minsk dead – impossible to achieve ceasefire as long as Obama and Poroshenko want war. Nothing indicates otherwise. Kiev mobilized around 90,000 heavily armed forces in Southeastern Ukraine.

They’re deployed for escalated war, proceeding with multiple daily attacks – perhaps continuing endlessly as long as Washington rejects peace.

It wants Ukraine used as a dagger targeting Russia’s heartland – along with growing numbers of US and other NATO troops in Eastern Europe close to its borders.

US plans call for establishing a military cordon sanitaire – aiming to marginalize, weaken, and isolate Russia from Europe. US provocations head things perilously closer to direct confrontation. All bets are off if lunatics in Washington launch it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

Halper’s new book sheds light on the arms industry, arguing that Israel is now the go-to nation for armies and police forces around the world

For 18 years Jeff Halper has been on the front lines of the Israel-Palestine conflict, helping to rebuild Palestinian homes in the occupied territories demolished by Israel. As he prepares to step down as head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), he is publishing a new book on Israel.

Halper’s main conclusion is disturbing. Israel, he says, is globalising Palestine.

The former anthropology professor’s wide-ranging research has forced him into an expertise he is not entirely comfortable with: the global arms industry.

Halper argues that Israel is cashing in – both financially and diplomatically – on systems of control it has developed in the occupied territories. It is exporting its know-how to global elites keen to protect their privileges from both external and internal challengers.

In a world supposedly mired in an endless war on terror, we may all be facing a future as Palestinians.

Halper’s book, entitled War Against the People, due out next month, suggests that Israel provides a unique window on some of the most important recent developments in what he terms “securocratic warfare”.

The book’s central thesis emerged as he tried to understand why tiny Israel hits way beyond its weight economically, politically and militarily. How does Israel have so much clout – not only in the US and Europe but, more surprisingly, in countries as diverse as India, Brazil and China?

None of the usual explanations – Holocaust guilt, the power of lobbies, even the growth in Christian fundamentalism – seemed to provide a complete answer.

Global pacification

Zeev Maoz, an Israeli political science professor based in California, set Halper on a different track. “He has observed that one of the Zionist movement’s fundamental tenets was to tie its wagon to a hegemon, serving it,” Halper says.

The Zionists did that early on by cultivating British support in Palestine. Once established as a state, Israel helped the French and British at Suez in 1956, and after 1967 Israel served as a US surrogate in the Middle East during the Cold War.

Today, Israel’s growing influence, Halper claims, reflects its positioning of itself at the heart of the rapidly burgeoning “global pacification” industry, advising and assisting militaries, police forces and homeland security agencies around the world.

In the post-9/11 world, Israel is security king – or “securityland”, as a leading Israeli analyst recently described it.

And significantly, Israel is starting to parlay this usefulness into wider political and diplomatic support, says Halper, even as the international community grows exasperated by nearly 50 years of occupation. Such backing, including from much of the Arab world, often remains hidden from view.

US president Dwight Eisenhower’s grim warning from the 1950s that a rampant “military-industrial complex” was threatening to become the real power behind the façade of popular democracy needs updating, says Halper.

He describes the emergence of what he calls the MISSILE complex: full-spectrum dominance by the US and its allies through the joint activity of the military, internal security, surveillance, intelligence and law enforcement.

After decades of controlling Palestinians under occupation, he notes, Israel is unrivalled in all these spheres. It uses the occupied territories as a giant laboratory for developing and testing new ideas, technology, tactics and weaponry.

An arms superpower

As we meet at his home in West Jerusalem, Halper is keen to stress that he is only sketching the outlines of the new US-led global pacification industry. He has entered largely uncharted waters. Journalists, analysts and academics have shied away from the necessary research, he claims, preferring to keep within their narrow specialisations.

Halper is interested in “big-picture” analysis, joining up the dots. And doing so has forced him to explore unfamiliar territory, reading up on key texts in security studies, poring over the works of terrorism experts, and meeting decorated generals.

Halper points out that Israel spends about 8 percent of its GDP a year on the military, about twice the per capita expenditure of the United States. Despite its size, Israel has more military aircraft than any European country.

Israel has four of the world’s top 100 arms manufacturers, and is ranked among the top 10 arms dealing countries, in some assessments as high as fourth place. The Global Militarisation Index has crowned Israel the most militarised nation on the planet every year since 2007.

In May Israel won a new accolade, becoming a “cyber superpower”, its companies selling about a tenth of the world’s computer and network security technology.

That focus on the military and weapons systems has led Israel into official military relations with 130 countries, many of them dictatorships known for their human rights violations. Reports suggest that Israel engages in more dubious and secretive deals with additional regimes.

This month the United Nations disclosed that Israel was breaking a western arms embargo on selling weapons to South Sudan, fuelling the civil war there. Critics have suggested that Israel also has advisers and trainers operating clandestinely in South Sudan.

End of conventional wars

But Israel’s real talent, says Halper, has been to exploit a new emphasis on “securocratic warfare”.

“Wars between states are largely a thing of the past,” he observes. “In the new kind of warfare, F-35 jets and nuclear weapons are far less useful. What is needed now are the skills Israel has developed after a century of ‘counter-insurgency’ against the Palestinians. Israel is the go-to country when it comes to securocratic warfare.”

The need for this kind of warfare was highlighted following the US attack on Iraq in 2003, he notes. Conventional wars between states have traditionally involved three phases: operational preparations, the actual attack, and the outcome.

But Iraq – as well as Afghanistan before it – showed a fourth stage: the need for stabilisation and peace-keeping following regime change.

The pacification industry that has boomed post-9/11, Halper notes, is spreading back to the West. As the military takes on many of the duties of a police force in external wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, back home the police become ever more militarised. Police in Ferguson look indistinguishable from their compatriots in the US army in Iraq.

What we are seeing is the rise of the human-security state – endless ‘war on terror’, the world in a permanent state of emergency. The traditional hard walls between the police and the military, between domestic and overseas intelligence agencies – between the FBI and the CIA , if you like – crumble.

Warrior cops

For elites who see danger lurking around every corner, Israel has the answer: what he calls the “warrior cop”. For decades Israel has been operating paramilitary forces like the Border Police, as well as intelligence services like the Shin Bet, whose area of operational responsibility is not constrained by distinctions between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

“Israel created the model long ago of the military and police working together, and now it is well-placed to train the world,” Halper concludes.

That point was underscored this week when the Israeli government announced that a long-time army officer, Gal Hirsch, would become the head of Israel’s national police force.

What is at stake? Are the US and Europe not trying to defend themselves against real terror threats?

Halper believes it is important to examine these developments within a larger framework: the capitalist world system.

It is no coincidence, he believes, that the US is talking up global terror threats at the same time as wealth and power have de-territorialised, creating an archipelago of elite interests that stretch from parts of the US and Europe to Singapore and the Virgin Islands.

Transnational corporations need secure corridors for the flow of capital and labour, he argues, as the much of the rest of the world turns into wastelands or slums.

The concern is how to maintain a social order conducive to capitalism as great swaths of the globe are impoverished and migrants try to escape their desperate plight.

This is where Israel has stepped in. The place where Israel has developed its ideas and tested them is the occupied territories, says Halper.

The control of Gaza, for example, offers a blueprint for other states concerned about domestic surveillance, border security, urban warfare, migration threats, and much more.

The Palestinians, in this sense, are an important resource for Israel. Without the occupied territories, Israel would be New Zealand. It would be a tourist destination, not a regional hegemon.

A place at NATO’s table

Israel’s arms industry isn’t just aimed at making money. “It puts Israel at the table with NATO countries.” Israel conducts military exercises with NATO, and helps develop Watchkeeper drones for the Europeans.

It also has increasingly close ties, says Halper, with regimes that are ostensibly its enemy, such as Saudi Arabia. “The Saudis are funding ISIS [Islamic State], so how does one explain their alliance with Israel? The common denominator is ‘security politics’. No two countries have interests more alike than Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

When the Saudis unveiled the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002, Halper argues, they offered, in return for an end to the occupation, the Arab world’s recognition of Israel as the regional hegemon.

Is Israel’s usefulness paying off diplomatically?

There are indications that increasingly it is. The Economist recently noted that India, which has long track record of supporting the Palestinians, was among five countries abstaining at the UN Human Rights Council last month on a resolution criticising Israel for its conduct in Gaza last summer in a 51-day attack that killed more than 500 children.

The magazine added that Israeli officials believe the international community’s growing dependence on its arms will reduce its vulnerability over the long term to the boycott (BDS) movement.

Halper points out that Nigeria, another country that has become reliant on Israeli arms, recently also betrayed its traditional support for the Palestinians.

Nigeria saved Israel and the US great embarrassment last December when it voted in the UN Security Council against a Palestinian resolution demanding an end to the occupation. The US had feared that it would have to cast its veto.

Halper emphasises that the US is still the world’s largest arms dealer by some margin. But in its scramble to fill the niches, Israel helps shine a light on the arms industry’s true purpose: not security, but pacification.

When you call it ‘security’, you shut down the debate. Who doesn’t want security? But when you reframe it is as ‘pacification’, the real goals become much clearer.

 

Radiation spewed out by the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant may be responsible for differences in the growth of native Japanese fir trees in the area.

Researchers primarily from the National Institute of Radiological Sciences said Aug. 28 that many fir trees near the plant, as well as other areas, had undergone “morphological defects.”

They intentionally avoided words like abnormality, but used morphological defects and change.

Their studies showed that the changes occurred more frequently in areas with higher air rates of radiation.

“But it is still unclear whether the phenomenon has been caused by radial rays,” a team member concluded, adding that exposure to higher levels of radiation is “one possible cause.”

Conducted in January, the survey covered the town of Okuma in Fukushima Prefecture, located 3.5 kilometers from the plant, where radiation levels of 33.9 microsieverts per hour were detected, and two locations in the town of Namie, also in the prefecture.

While one of the Namie investigation sites is 8.5 km from the plant and measured 19.6 microsieverts per hour, readings of 6.85 microsieverts were detected at the other spot, located 15 km from the facility.

All the sites are within the government-designated difficult-to-return zone, meaning that the residents were evacuated and are prohibited from living there.

The team also examined firs in distant Kita-Ibaraki, Ibaraki Prefecture, which had radiation levels of 0.13 microsieverts per hour, for comparison.

In each of the four sites, the scientists checked 100 to 200 fir trees.

They found that more than 90 percent of firs in the Okuma site were not growing normally. Fir tree boles normally extend upward with two or so branches arising from them horizontally each year. But this was not the case.

Similar changes in shape were found in more than 40 percent of firs and around 30 percent of the trees, respectively, in the two Namie locations. Less than 10 percent of fir trees in the Kita-Ibaraki survey site also were different.

According to the NIRS, findings of studies concerning the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster and other research revealed that conifers, such as firs and pine trees, are vulnerable to the effects of radiation.

However, the scientists noted that the problems reported in their latest survey may have been caused by animals, tree sickness or cold weather, not by exposure to strong radiation.

The Environment Ministry has been examining the impact of radial rays on local ecosystems since the nuclear crisis unfolded at the Fukushima nuclear plant four years ago. The NIRS study is part of those ministry efforts.

The governmental agency has to date monitored 44 kinds of animals and plants in areas around the damaged facility, but no other significant changes or abnormalities have been reported.

‘LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS ESSENTIAL’

Tomoko Nakanishi, a professor of radiation plant physiology at the University of Tokyo, said the latest findings are invaluable as researchers have difficulty doing surveys in the difficult-to-return zone due to high radiation readings.

“There had been so little data on such areas,” she said.

But Nakanishi also pointed out it will require further research to conclude the morphological changes have been caused by exposure to radial rays.

“Other factors may have affected fir trees,” Nakanishi said. “Researchers need to examine through lab experiments what will happen when firs are exposed to high levels of radiation.”

It is worth repeating again and again that the bulk of America’s mainline media is owned and controlled by a mere 6 corporations. This, of course, means that unless you’re already consciously avoiding these mainline media sources, then most of the news and entertainment that makes it onto your screen and into your mind comes from a small pool of corporate sources, all of which play important roles in delivering propaganda, social programming and perpetual crisis narratives to the public.

The conglomerates are: General Electric, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. 

All are corporations that have their own shady histories, dealings and suspicious actors. Disney being widely regarded as an occult enterprise aimed at warping the minds of children with disturbing subliminal imagery. One of these companies is also the 12th largest US military defense contractor, so it’s no surprise that so much of our entertainment centers around the glorification of war and violence.

By surveying what is available for consumption in the mass media, it is easy to see what type of society these 6 corporations are helping to construct. They have the power to warp reality by calling staged shows ‘reality’ shows. Ideas which don’t support mainstream narratives and the consumer agenda are omitted, and stories about independent people over-coming strife without dependence on government are seldom if ever elevated.

The promotion of shallow, materialistic, ego-centric values, and the obvious dumbing down of the American population is coming from these 6 corporations. Think about that. These are the companies that glorify consumption, obedience, ignorance, the hyper-sexualization of youth, the glorification of war and government surveillance, and so on. The advertisers that support these media companies have tremendous sway over what makes it on the airwaves. They help to control public perception.

The bottom line is that corporate media is a behemoth of special interests and mind controllers. So much of the human story is omitted in this capitalistic, for-profit environment scheme like this, which is why now more than ever the independent, alternative media is such a gem for human kind.

The info-graphic below was produced in 2011 by FrugalDad.com, and although there have been some changes to the information since then, the landscape of American media is well represented here. Compare today to 1983 when the industry was occupied by some 50 independent media companies.

Some changes to the graphic noted by Business Insider:

NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them.

With such tremendous global reach in all forms of media communication, these corporations help to shape our world by providing coverage of our lives, analyses of our world, entertainment to pass our time and inspire our minds, and even distraction and occupation for our children.

Notes:

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-25-us-defense-companies-2012-2?op=1

Vic Bishop is a staff writer for Waking Times.

This document is meant for all those interested in the lead up and current events surrounding the war in Syria and the creation of the Islamic State (ISIS).

Below is a timeline ranging from 1992-2015 with related articles to the war in Syria, ISIS and geopolitical events that tie them all together. Purposely the author of this document provides No commentary. 

You will notice that each citation is met with origin of the article, date published and key quotations. Also, the author attempted to find sources that many “Westerners” would consider “mainstream”, with the exception of a few. Lastly, at the end of the timeline, one can find longer articles and videos that the reader can dive into if interested.   

-Kevin Borge

SYRIAN WAR-ISIS CREATION TIMELINE:

History Commons, Autumn 1992:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aautumn92rethinking#aautumn92rethinking

– “Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis publishes an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs called “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he advocates a policy he calls “Lebanonization.” He says, “[A] possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’”… Lewis, a British Jew, is well known as a longtime supporter of the Israeli right wing. Since the 1950s, he has argued that the West and Islam have been engaged in a titanic “clash of civilizations” and that the US should take a hard line against all Arab countries. Lewis is considered a highly influential figure to the neoconservative movement, and some neoconservatives such as Richard Perle (right) and Harold Rhode consider him a mentor. In 1996, Perle and others influenced by Lewis will write a paper for right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break” that advocates the “Lebanonization”  of countries like Iraq and Syria.”… “Lewis will remain influential after 9/11. For instance, he will have dinner with Vice President Cheney shortly before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some will later suspect that Cheney and others were actually implementing Lewis’s idea by invading Iraq. Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will say in May 2003, just after the invasion, “The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.”

History Commons, July 8, 1996:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_74#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_74 –

“The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The paper, whose lead author is neoconservative Richard Perle, is meant to advise the new, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”… It advocates making a complete break with past policies by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism.…”…

“Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper says.”

Weekly Standard, September 24, 2001:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/025ocenr.asp

– “Defeating the Saddam/bin Laden axis will send a broader message as well. It will deter Iran, Syria, and the other part-time members of the anti-American coalition in the Middle East, and reassure our regional friends. And it will restore the global credibility tarnished in the Clinton years. Both our friends and our enemies will be watching to see if we pass this test.”

History Commons, September 28, 2001:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092801probablywasbehind#a092801probablywasbehind

– “During a National Security Council meeting attended by CIA Director Tenet (left with Bush and Cheney), National Security Adviser Rice, Secretary of State Powell, Vice President Cheney and others, President Bush says of the 9/11 attacks, “Many believe Saddam [Hussein] is involved. That’s not an issue for now. If we catch him being involved, we’ll act. He probably was behind this in the end.” He also says, “What we do in Afghanistan is an important part of our effort. It’s important to be serious and that’ll be a signal to other countries about how serious we are on terror.” He mentions Syria and Iran as countries he wants to warn. This is according to journalist Bob Woodward, who interviews many top officials at the meeting.”

Foreign Policy Research Institute, November 14, 2001:

http://www.fpri.org/articles/2001/11/next-stop-iraq –

“Those who think Iraq should not be next may want to think about Syria or Iran or Sudan or Yemen or Somalia or North Korea or Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority. These are all institutions, governments for the most part, that permit acts of terror to take place, that sponsor terrorists, that give them refuge, give them sanctuary, and very often much more help than that. When I recite this list, people typically say “Well, are we going to go to war against a dozen countries?”… “If we destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I’m confident we will, and we then go on to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we certainly could if we chose to do so, I think we would have an impressive case to make to the Syrians, the Somalis and others. We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: “You’re next. You’re next unless you stop the practice of supporting terrorism.”

CBS News, January 29, 2002:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/

– “”According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.”…

Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2002:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0830/p08s01-wome.html

– “It echoes the hawks in the Bush administration, but Israel has its own agenda in backing a US attack on Iraq. As Egypt and other Arab allies issue vehement warnings to dissuade Washington, Israel’s fear is that the US will back off.”… “Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party member of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, says he sees another advantage for Israel. The installation of a pro-American government in Iraq would help Israel vis-à-vis another enemy: Syria. “After Iraq is taken by US troops and we see a new regime installed as in Afghanistan, and Iraqi bases become American bases, it will be very easy to pressure Syria to stop supporting terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, to allow the Lebanese army to dismantle Hizbullah, and maybe to put an end to the Syrian occupation in Lebanon,” he says. “If this happens we will really see a new Middle East.” “It might be enough not to invade Syria but just to have an American or UN blockade so that no one can ship weapons to it,” Steinitz adds.”

The Guardian, September 3, 2002:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/03/worlddispatch.iraq

– “In a televised speech last week, President Hosni Mubarak (left) of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region,” he said. Mr Mubarak is an old-fashioned kind of Arab leader and, in the brave new post-September-11 world, he doesn’t quite get the point.”… “For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan. In their eyes, Iraq is just the starting point – or, as a recent presentation at the Pentagon put it, “the tactical pivot” – for re-moulding the Middle East on Israeli-American lines.”…

“The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”. Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”…

“The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria.”… “To succeed, the paper stressed, Israel would have to win broad American support for these new policies – and it advised Mr Netanyahu to formulate them “in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war which apply well to Israel”.”

Haaretz, February 18, 2003:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/sharon-says-u-s-should-also-disarm-iran-libya-and-syria-1.18707

– “Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. “These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve,” Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.”

The American Conservative, March 24, 2003:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/

– “In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?” Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused.”… “What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card.

So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives. Indeed, it is the charge of “anti-Semitism” itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon.”…

“On Sept. 12, Americans were still in shock when Bill Bennett told CNN that we were in “a struggle between good and evil,” that the Congress must declare war on “militant Islam,” and that “overwhelming force” must be used. Bennett cited Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and China as targets for attack.”…

“The Wall Street Journal immediately offered up a specific target list, calling for U.S. air strikes on “terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt.” Yet, not one of Bennett’s six countries, nor one of these five, had anything to do with 9/11.”… “On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing President Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers’ support, the president was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam.”… “Indeed, Sharon has been everywhere the echo of his acolytes in America. In February 2003, Sharon told a delegation of Congressmen that, after Saddam’s regime is destroyed, it is of “vital importance” that the United States disarm Iran, Syria, and Libya.”… “In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy: Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad.

Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish “the principle of preemption,” has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.”… “U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials … that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.”

The Telegraph, April 21, 2003:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1428064/America-plans-military-bases-in-Iraq-to-apply-pressure-on-Middle-East.html

– “The United States is planning to establish up to four long-term military bases in Iraq. The proposal would transform America’s ability to project its power in the Middle East.”… “The bases would be used primarily to help with reconstructing Iraq. But their proximity to Syria and Iran could help the US to apply added pressure on those countries. With US troops also stationed in Afghanistan, Iran is now almost surrounded by American forces. One senior official said US bases in Iraq would “make Syria and Iran nervous”.”

USA Today, May 1, 2003:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-01-oppose_x.htm

– “Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, these and other nations are relentless in their pursuit of terror weapons. Does anyone seriously argue that they would abandon their programs if we had left Saddam in power?”

The Guardian, September 26, 2003:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1?cat=politics&type=article

– “Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive “regime change” in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west’s oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures. Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria’s pro-western neighbours, and then to “eliminate” the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.”… “More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq’s oilfields to Turkey.”…

“The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.” That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of “sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities” to be blamed on Damascus. The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee”, and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria”

The Independent, December 24, 2004:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqs-christian-minority-loses-its-innocence-now-the-rule-of-saddam-is-over-6155429.html

– “After decades of living in relative harmony with the Muslim majority, Iraq’s ancient Christian minority ­ who include Chaldeans, with allegiance to the Pope, as well as Orthodox Assyrians and Armenians ­ is threatened as never before.”…

History Commons, January 25, 2005:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran_905#us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_iran_905

– “Military analyst William Arkin publishes 3,000 US military code names along with brief descriptions in his book Code Names: Deciphering US Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Included in his list is CONPLAN 8022, a top-secret pre-emptive plan to take out nuclear facilities and other threats in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Another plan mentioned is Oplan 4305, which is a contingency plan for defending of Israel.”

Asia Times, February 15, 2005:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB15Ak02.html

– “Asia Times Online has learned that in a highly clandestine operation, the US has procured Pakistan-manufactured weapons, including rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. Consignments have been loaded in bulk onto US military cargo aircraft at Chaklala airbase in the past few weeks. The aircraft arrived from and departed for Iraq. The US-armed and supported militias in the south will comprise former members of the Ba’ath Party, which has already split into three factions, only one of which is pro-Saddam Hussein.

They would be expected to receive assistance from pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord. A military analyst familiar with strategic and proxy operations commented that there is a specific reason behind procuring arms from Pakistan, rather than acquiring US-made ones. “A similar strategy was adopted in Afghanistan during the initial few years of the anti-USSR resistance [the early 1980s] movement where guerrillas were supplied with Chinese-made AK-47 rifles [which were procured by Pakistan with US money], Egyptian and German-made G-3 rifles. Similarly, other arms, like anti-aircraft guns, short-range missiles and mortars, were also procured by the US from different countries and supplied to Pakistan, which handed them over to the guerrillas,” the analyst maintained.

The obvious reason for this tactic is to give the impression that the resistance acquired its arms and ammunition from different channels and from different countries – and anywhere other than the United States. Asia Times Online contacts said it is clear that Pakistan would not be the only country from which the US would have procured arms. And such arms could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them.”

The Guardian, April 27, 2005:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/27/iraq.iraq5

– “Warnings of the onslaught prompted the vast majority of Falluja’s 300,000 people to flee. The city was then declared a free-fire zone on the grounds that the only people left behind must be “terrorists”. Three weeks after the attack was launched last November, the Americans claimed victory. They say they killed about 1,300 people; one week into the siege, a BBC reporter put the unofficial death toll at 2,000. But details of what happened and who the dead were remain obscure. Were many unarmed civilians, as Baghdad-based human rights groups report? Even if they were trying to defend their homes by fighting the Americans, does that make them “terrorists”?”…

“Other glimpses of life in Falluja come from Dr Hafid al-Dulaimi, head of the city’s compensation commission, who reports that 36,000 homes were destroyed in the US onslaught, along with 8,400 shops. Sixty nurseries and schools were ruined, along with 65 mosques and religious sanctuaries.”… “Burhan Fasa’a, a cameraman for the Lebanese Broadcasting Company, reported during the siege that dead family members were buried in their gardens because people could not leave their homes. Refugees told one of us that civilians carrying white flags were gunned down by American soldiers. Corpses were tied to US tanks and paraded around like trophies. Justin Alexander, a volunteer for Christian Peacemaker Teams, recently found hundreds living in tents in the grounds of their homes, or in a single patched-up room. A strict system of identity cards blocks access to anyone whose papers give a birthplace outside Falluja, so long-term residents born elsewhere cannot go home. “Fallujans feel the remnants of their city have been turned into a giant prison,” he reports.”

Raw Story, September 23, 2005:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/CAUGHT_RED__0923.html

– “According to the BBC’s Galpin, reporting for BBC Radio 4 (9/20/05, 18 hrs news script), Iraqi police sources in Basra told the BBC the “two British men were arrested after failing to stop at a checkpoint. There was an exchange of gunfire. The men were wearing traditional Arab clothing, and when the police eventually stopped them, they said they found explosives and weapons in their car…It’s widely believed the two British servicemen were operating undercover.” Undercover? Dressed as Arabs? What were they trying to do that had caught the attention of their colleagues, the Iraqi police?”… “These elite forces operate under the Special Reconnaissance Regiment and were formed last year by then defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, “to gather human intelligence during counter-terrorist missions.”

The question, of course, is how does firing at Iraqi police while dressed as Arabs and carrying explosives constitute “countering terrorism” or even gathering “intelligence”? The admission by British defence officials is revealing. A glance at the Special Reconnaissance Regiment gives a more concrete idea of the sort of operations these two British soldiers were involved in.”… “Most startlingly, Fulton said that his handlers told him his operations were “sanctioned right at the top… this goes the whole way to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows what you are doing.”… “So, based on the methodology of their Regiment, the two British SAS operatives were in Iraq to “penetrate the enemy and be the enemy,” in order of course to “beat the enemy.” Instead of beating the enemy, however, they ended up fomenting massive chaos and killing innocent people, a familiar pattern for critical students of the British role in the Northern Ireland conflict.”

Time Magazine, December 19, 2006:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571751,00.html

– “The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document that says that the U.S. already is “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”… “The document says that Syria’s legislative elections, scheduled for March 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for… critics of the Assad regime.” To capitalize on that opportunity, the document proposes a secret “election monitoring” scheme, in which “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.”

The proposal also calls for surreptitiously giving money to at least one Syrian politician who, according to the document, intends to run in the election. The effort would also include “voter education campaigns” and public opinion polling, with the first poll “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.”… “The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF).

The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform.”… “Money for the election-monitoring proposal would be channeled through a State Department program known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative, or MEPI. According to MEPI’s website, the program passes out funds ranging between $100,000 and $1 million to promote education and women’s empowerment, as well as economic and political reform, part of a total allocation of $5 million for Syria that Congress supported earlier this year.”

CNN, May 4, 2007:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.main/

– “Iraqi officials reported the death of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, said to be head of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization of Sunni militant groups. Caldwell said it is not known who al-Baghdadi is or whether he exists, and Iraqis may have mistaken al-Jubouri for al-Baghdadi.”

New York Times, July 8, 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html?_r=1&

– “For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi. As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed. On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi’s ability to escape attack: He never existed.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.”… “The ploy was to invent Baghdadi, a figure whose very name establishes his Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq and then arrange for Masri to swear allegiance to him. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, sought to reinforce the deception by referring to Baghdadi in his video and Internet statements.”… “Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and a Middle East expert, said that experts had long wondered whether Baghdadi actually existed.”There has been a question mark about this,” he said.”

Reuters, July 18, 2007:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/07/18/us-iraq-qaeda-idUSL1820065720070718?rpc=92

– “A senior operative for al Qaeda in Iraq who was caught this month has told his U.S. military interrogators a prominent al Qaeda-led group is just a front and its leader fictitious, a military spokesman said on Wednesday. Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner told a news conference that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq, which was purportedly set up last year, did not exist.”… “Bergner said the information came from an operative called Khalid al-Mashadani who was caught on July 4 and who he said was an intermediary to Osama bin Laden. He said Mashadani was believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the Sunni Islamist al Qaeda in Iraq network. “In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al Qaeda in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq,” Bergner said.”

McClatchy, October 7, 2007:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24470350.html

– “Nearly a month after a mysterious Israeli military airstrike in Syria generated political aftershocks from Washington to North Korea, the Israeli government lifted its official veil of secrecy Tuesday.”… “Israel lifted its ban on reporting that the attack took place after Syrian President Bashar Assad told the British Broadcasting Corp. that Israeli jets had hit an “unused military building.” But Israeli officials refused to say anything about the attack, and almost no one who’d be expected to know — from government officials to former intelligence officers — is talking.”…

New York Times, April 20, 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?pagewanted=all

– “To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world. Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.”

Reuters, May 12, 2009:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/12/idUSLC786352

– “Al Qaeda-linked group the Islamic State of Iraq has denied Iraqi government reports that its leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi has been captured.”… “Some experts say they are unconvinced that Baghdadi exists. They say he is a fictional character invented by al Qaeda in Iraq as part of a media strategy to put an Iraqi figurehead at the top of an organisation that is otherwise foreign-run.”

Huffington Post, May 24, 2009:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/baghdad-suicide-bomber-ki_0_n_190455.html

– “The reported capture of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State of Iraq, could mark a setback to insurgents as they try to intensify attacks after a relative lull. In the past, however, Iraqi officials have reported al-Baghdadi’s arrest or killing, only to acknowledge later that they were wrong. The U.S. military has even said al-Baghdadi could be a fictitious character used to give an Iraqi face to an organization dominated by foreign al-Qaida fighters.”… “In 2007, Iraq’s government reported that al-Baghdadi had been killed and released photos of what it said was his body. Later, security officials said they had arrested al-Baghdadi. In both cases, the U.S. military said at the time it could not be confirmed _ and the reports turned out not to be true.”

Reuters, April 19, 2010:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/19/us-iraq-violence-alqaeda-idUSTRE63I3CL20100419

– “Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said al Qaeda’s Iraq leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the purported head of its local affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq, were found dead in a hole in the ground inside a house after it was surrounded and stormed by troops.”… “Their deaths are potentially devastating blows to al Qaeda Iraq,” U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told reporters in Washington, adding the operation “demonstrates the improved security strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces.”

Al-Jazeera, April 25, 2010:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/04/201042572834684919.html –

“Al-Masri and al-Baghdadi were found dead in a basement after their safe house about 10km outside the town of Tikrit was hit by a missile and stormed by Iraqi and US troops.”

Washington Post, May 25, 2010:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

– “During planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group kicked around a number of ideas for discrediting Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his people. One was to create a video purporting to show the Iraqi dictator having sex with a teenage boy, according to two former CIA officials familiar with the project. “It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,” said one of the former officials. “Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.”… “Another idea was to interrupt Iraqi television programming with a fake special news bulletin. An actor playing Hussein would announce that he was stepping down in favor of his (much-reviled) son Uday.”… “The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.”

USA Today, June 2, 2010:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2010-06-01-iraq-christians_N.htm

– “Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 there were about 1.4 million Christians in Iraq, a Muslim-dominated nation of nearly 30 million. Since then, about 50% of Iraq’s Christians have fled the country, taking refuge in neighboring Jordan, Syria, Europe and the USA, according to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).”

NY Daily News, September 5, 2010:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/tony-blair-dick-cheney-wanted-remake-middle-east-9-11-invade-iraq-syria-iran-article-1.438532#

– “Dick Cheney wanted to invade several Middle East nations, not just Iraq, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals in his new book.”… “Cheney “would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran, dealing with all their surrogates in the course of it — Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.,” Blair wrote in his memoir, “A Journey.”

CBC News, April 8, 2011:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-admits-funding-syrian-opposition-1.987112

– “The U.S. State Department acknowledged Monday it has been funding opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad, following the release of secret diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks that document the funding. The files show that up to $6.3 million US was funnelled to the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based dissident organization that operates the Barada TV satellite channel, which broadcasts anti-government news into Syria. Another $6 million went to support a variety of initiatives, including training for journalists and activists, between 2006 and 2010.”… “On Monday, the Interior Ministry identified the gangs as “armed Salafi groups,” referring to an ultraconservative form of Islam that has its roots in Saudi Arabia and can be found all over the region. The statement carried by the state news agency said they were seeking to establish “emirates” and were “abusing the freedoms and reforms launched in the comprehensive program with a timetable by President Bashar Assad.”

Reuters, April 18. 2011:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/18/us-usa-syria-wikileaks-idUSTRE73H0E720110418

– “The State Department has secretly funded Syrian opposition groups, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, The Washington Post reported on Monday. The cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million since 2006 to a group of Syrian exiles to operate a London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, and finance activities inside Syria, the Post said. Barada TV began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria that began last month as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad the Post said. The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after political ties with Damascus were frozen in 2005, the newspaper said. The financial backing has continued under President Barack Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad, the Post said.”

Christianity Today, July 7, 2011:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/july/syria-christians-assad.html

– “This spring, many Syrian Christians rejected protestors’ demands for embattled president Bashar al-Assad to resign. But Christians did broadly endorse democratic reforms that would bring an end to dictatorship.”… “In late May, International Christian Concern, an evangelical ministry to the persecuted church, released to Christianity Today an anonymous open letter from a “trusted Syrian source” that explains why many Syrian Christians support Assad’s regime.”… “The secular government allows churches to preach, teach, evangelize, publish religious materials, and build sanctuaries. Christians have access to education and employment.”

New York Times, September 27, 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/middleeast/fearing-change-syria-christians-back-bashar-al-assad.html

– “For many Syrian Christians, Mr. Assad remains predictable in a region where unpredictability has driven their brethren from war-racked places like Iraq and Lebanon, and where others have felt threatened in post-revolutionary Egypt.”…” They fear that in the event the president falls, they may be subjected to reprisals at the hands of a conservative Sunni leadership for what it sees as Christian support of the Assad family. They worry that the struggle to dislodge Mr. Assad could turn into a civil war, unleashing sectarian bloodshed in a country where minorities, ethnic and religious, have found a way to coexist for the most part.”

The Guardian, November 1, 2011:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/01/christians-arab-street-islam

– “Secular dictatorships such as those of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and even of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gadaffi in Libya were a bloody nightmare for political dissidents. But Christian minorities felt protected from Islamic persecution and were allowed to practise their religious faith.”… “It has happened already in Iraq, due to the “Anglo-American war” started in 2003. At that time, the number of Chaldeans, the Christian Iraqis, was between 800,000 and 1.4 million. In 2009-2010, it was estimated are between 400,000 and 500,000, and rapidly decreasing. Cairo’s violent repression shows a similar process is under way in Egypt as well, where they still represent roughly 10% of the population.”

The Telegraph, November 27, 2011:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8919057/Leading-Libyan-Islamist-met-Free-Syrian-Army-opposition-group.html

– “Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”… “The meetings came as a sign of a growing ties between Libya’s fledgling government and the Syrian opposition. The Daily Telegraph on Saturday revealed that the new Libyan authorities had offered money and weapons to the growing insurgency against Bashar al-Assad.”

Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2011:

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/US-commander-visits-Israel-to-finalize-missile-drill

– “Israel is moving forward with plans to hold the largest-ever missile defense exercise in its history this spring amid Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Last week, Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the US’s Third Air Force based in Germany, visited Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill, expected to see the deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.”

Saudi Gazette, February 11, 2012:

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=20120207117076

– “The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) will soon recognize the Free Syrian Army as the sole and legitimate representative of the Syrian people, a high-ranking official in Bahrain told the Saudi Gazette.”

National Post, February 16, 2012:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/al-qaeda-has-likely-influtrated-syria-opposition-behind-recent-suicide-bombings-u-s

– “Al-Qaeda’s branch in Iraq likely carried out recent suicide bombings in Syria and has infiltrated opposition forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the U.S. intelligence chief said Thursday.”… “Another disturbing phenomenon that we’ve seen recently, apparently, is the presence of extremists who have infiltrated the opposition groups. “The opposition groups in many cases may not be aware that they’re there,” said Clapper, director of national intelligence.”

Christian Science Monitor, February 17, 2012/;

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0217/Top-US-official-Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq-joining-fight-against-Syria-s-Assad

– “We believe that Al Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria,” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was the first time that a top US official publicly confirmed the involvement of Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI, in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which began nearly a year ago as peaceful protests for an end to his family’s four-decade-long rule.”…” Clapper said that AQI extremists appear to have secretly joined some of the groups of civilians and military deserters – known collectively as the Free Syrian Army – who have taken up arms in response to the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on anti-government protests.”

The Independent, February 23, 2012:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rebel-forces-armed-by-wealthy-exiles-7320510.html

– “As Syria slides towards a civil war, a wealthy Syrian exile is racing to provide additional arms and ammunition to the loosely organised bands of rebels fighting under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Abu Qotaiba, a nom de guerre, has lived for the past 19 years in a wealthy Gulf country. He told The Independent he was buying weapons from arms dealers in Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan and sending them into Syria, despite the cost of an AK-47 rising from about $300 to about $1,500. “Now is a chance for [dealers] to sell them at a high price,” Abu Qotaiba said. Earlier this week, US Senator John McCain told reporters that there were ways to get weapons to the Syrian opposition without direct US involvement.

“People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves,” he said.”… “The FSA has proved successful at getting hold of arms, he said. Syrian security forces can no longer go wherever they wanted in the country, especially inside cities such as Homs and Idlib because some streets were controlled by the FSA. Abu Qotaiba refused to say where the Libyan weapons came from, only denying that the arms were provided by Libya’s National Transitional Council. They came “through some revolutionaries,” he said. “There are many Libyan people trying to help. They want to return the slap to Bashar because he supported Gaddafi. They have lived our situation.”

CNN, February 23, 2012:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

– “Diplomatic sources told CNN that a number of Arab nations are supplying arms to the Syrian opposition. The sources wouldn’t identify which countries.”

Al-Arabiya News, February 27, 2012:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/27/197380.html

– “In other news, Qatar’s prime minister said Monday he was in favor of delivering arms to the Syrian opposition that is battling President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. “We should do whatever necessary to help them, including giving them weapons to defend themselves,” Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani said during an official visit to Norway.”

Foreign Policy, February 27, 2012:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/27/saudi-arabia-is-arming-the-syrian-opposition/?wp_login_redirect=0

– “According to news reports confirmed by a member of the Syrian opposition, Riyadh currently sends weapons on an ad hoc basis to the Syrian opposition by way of Sunni tribal allies in Iraq and Lebanon. But in light of recent developments, more weapons are almost certainly on their way.”

Market Watch, February 28, 2012:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ten-companies-profiting-most-from-war-2012-02-28

– “Global sales of arms and military services by the 100 largest defense contractors increased in 2010 to $411.1 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The increase reflects a decade-long trend of growing military spending. Since 2002, total arms sales among the 100 largest arms manufacturers have increased 60%.”…”While many industries continued to suffer in 2010 as a result of the financial crisis, leaders in the arms and military services were largely unaffected.”

Foreign Policy, March 6, 2012:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/06/obama-administration-moves-to-aid-syrian-opposition/

– “The Obama administration is moving to provide direct assistance to the internal opposition in Syria for the first time, marking a shift in U.S. policy toward a more aggressive plan to help oust President Bashar al-Assad.”… “These moves are going to invest the U.S. in a much deeper sense with the opposition,” one administration official said. “U.S. policy is now aligned with enabling the opposition to overthrow the Assad regime. This codifies a significant change in our Syria policy.”

Washington Post, May 15, 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

– “Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials.”… “Material is being stockpiled in Damascus, in Idlib near the Turkish border and in Zabadani on the Lebanese border. Opposition activists who two months ago said the rebels were running out of ammunition said this week that the flow of weapons — most still bought on the black market in neighboring countries or from elements of the Syrian military — has significantly increased after a decision by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf states to provide millions of dollars in funding each month. Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood also said it has opened its own supply channel to the rebels, using resources from wealthy private individuals and money from gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said Mulham al-Drobi, a member of the Brotherhood’s executive committee.”

The Telegraph, May 27, 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html

– “The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.”

Fides News Agency, June 9, 2012:

http://www.fides.org/en/news/31694?idnews=31694&lan=eng#.VdynFpfnhqx

– “Exodus of Christians in the west of Syria: the Christian population has left the town of Qusayr, near Homs, following an ultimatum from the military chief of the armed opposition, Abdel Salam Harba. This is what local sources of Fides report, indicating that, following the outbreak of the conflict, out of the ten thousand faithful who lived in the town, only a thousand have remained, who have now been forced to flee in haste to fury. Some mosques in the city have re-launched the message, announcing from the minarets: “Christians must leave Qusayr within six days, which expires this Friday.”

Fides News Agency, June 12, 2012:

http://www.fides.org/en/news/31707?idnews=31707&lan=eng#.VdynFJfnhqx

– “The Christian Maurice Bitar was killed in Qusayr, near the town of Homs where the Christian population – about a thousand people out of 10 thousand who lived there before the beginning of the violence – has been forced to flee after the ‘ultimatum launched by an armed faction in the opposition forces led by General Abdel Salam Harba.”… “The armed opposition, in fact, as confirmed by numerous observers in Syria and abroad, is gradually radicalizing towards Sunni extremist ideology.”

Fides News Agency, June 13, 2012:

http://www.fides.org/en/news/31719?idnews=31719&lan=eng#.VdynFJfnhqy

– “A band of radical militiamen broke into the Greek-catholic church of St. Elias in Qusayr this morning, near the town of Homs, desecrating it. The militiamen forced the door, rang the bells in mockery, laughed at the sacred symbols of the Christian faith with the sole purpose of carrying out a demonstrative act and making a mockery of the Christian community. “It is the first time, in the ongoing conflict, that such an episode occurs, in which sacred symbols are deliberately hit,” notes with concern a local source of Fides.”

New York Times, June 21, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

– “A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.”

New York Times, June 28, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/syrias-threatened-christians.html?_r=0

– “Earlier this month, reports came from the Syrian city of Qusayr of an ominous warning to the town’s Christians: Either join the Sunni-led opposition against Bashar al-Assad or leave. Soon after, thousands of Christians fled the town.”… “After decades of protection by a secular-leaning dictatorship, the Qusayr ultimatum warned of a dark future for Syria’s Christian community.”… “Throughout the years, Christians, like many other minorities in the region, have lent their support to those regimes that have guaranteed their security and religious freedom. In Iraq, Christians rose to the highest levels of society under Saddam Hussein’s regime, while in Egypt, Coptic Christians were protected from ultraconservative Salafists under Hosni Mubarak. As secular leaders from the secretive Alawite sect, the Assad dynasty largely preserved Christian life, protecting Syria’s minorities from what was perceived as a collective threat from the country’s Sunni majority.”

The Telegraph, July 12, 2012:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9396256/Al-Qaeda-tries-to-carve-out-a-war-for-itself-in-Syria.html

– “The Daily Telegraph has seen al-Qaeda’s flag flying openly in some areas of Idlib and Aleppo provinces that straddle the borders with Turkey and Iraq and fighters in the rebel Free Syrian Army have told how representatives of the militant group have tried in past months to win control of towns and villages.”…

Reuters, July 20, 2012:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801

– “President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.”

Fides News Agency, July 23, 2012:

http://www.fides.org/en/news/31978?idnews=31978&lan=eng#.Vdkx3Zfnhqy

– “Islamist groups in action in Damascus: the victims are Christian civilians and Iraqi refugees.”

Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2012:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443343704577551281530782466

– “Al Qaeda in Syria (often operating as the “Al Nusra Front for the People of the Levant”) is using traffickers—some ideologically aligned, some motivated by money—to secure routes through Turkey and Iraq for foreign fighters, most of whom are from the Middle East and North Africa. A growing number of donors from the Persian Gulf and Levant appear to be sending financial support, according to U.S. Treasury Department officials I interviewed.”…

The Star, July 27, 2012:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/07/27/al_qaeda_is_seeking_to_manipulate_tensions_in_the_middle_east_to_its_own_advantage_warn_experts.html

– “Another fear is the number of foreigner fighters with different agendas now in Syria. Two photographers being held captive in Syria, freed on Friday, told the New York Times that foreigner fighters from Bangladesh, Chechnya, Pakistan and Britain were among their captors. “They were definitely quite extreme in their religious beliefs,” Dutch freelance photographer Jeroen Oerlemans told the paper. “All day we were spoken to about the Koran and how they would bring sharia law to Syria. I don’t think they were Al Qaeda, they seemed too amateurish for that. They said, ‘We’re not Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda is down the road.’”… “The Turks provide a safe haven along the borders and do some training and intelligence work. The Jordanians have the same role. The Saudis provide weapons and money. The CIA helps with command and control.”

Assyrian International News Agency, July 29, 2012:

http://www.aina.org/news/2012072912019.htm

– “The Vatican has received reports deemed credible that Sunni rebels financed by Qatar were attacking churches and ordering Christians to leave their homes.”

Global Post, July 31, 2012:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/syria/120731/aleppo-christians-islamists-jihadis-al-qaeda-iraq-sectarian-conflict

– “As evidence mounts that foreign Islamists are fighting alongside Syria’s increasingly radicalized rebels, Christians in Aleppo and elsewhere are taking up arms, often supplied by the regime.”… “We saw what happened to the Christians in Iraq,” Abu George, a Christian resident of Aleppo’s Aziza district told GlobalPost. “What is going on in Aleppo is not a popular revolution for democracy and freedom. The fighters of the so-called Free Syrian Army are radical Sunnis who want to establish an Islamic state.”

PBS, July 31, 2012:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/world-july-dec12-syria_07-31/

– “The plight of Christians in Iraq has long worried Syria’s estimated 2 million Christians, around 10 percent of the population. The nightmare of similar persecution has led them to support the secular regime of President Bashar al-Assad, which presents itself as a defender of minorities.”

McClatchy, August 1, 2012:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article24733537.html#.UjCNA4LDQ7B

– “The Obama administration quietly has cleared the way for U.S. residents to buy weapons for the rebels who are fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, granting a Washington-based advocacy group a rare license to collect money for arms and other equipment. The license, which the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issued last month without fanfare, gives the nonprofit Syrian Support Group the authority to take in money and pass it directly to armed insurgents. Previously, U.S. entities’ assistance to Syria was limited to humanitarian and educational programs.”

The Guardian, August 2, 2012:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/02/syria-christians-catalyst-peace

– “In Iraq, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, western allies admitted that they had no postwar plan and many have paid the price for this – especially the Iraqi minorities; since Saddam fell, hundreds of thousands of Christians as well as Muslims have fled Iraq in the face of sectarian violence and terrorism.”…” Despite what you might read in much of the western media, Syria is an enlightened, secular society with a deeply spiritual core and the common belief is that Syria is for everybody. A fundamentalist state would destroy the traditions of co-existence and religious harmony that have existed here since the fall of the Ottoman Empire nearly 100 years ago. Syrian independence was won with the blood of all Syrians – Muslim, Christian, Druze, Alawite and Kurdish.”… “Christians were not persecuted even before the Assad family came to power – in the 1940s, Syria had a Christian prime minister.”

The Globe and Mail, August 2, 2012:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obama-authorizes-secret-cia-support-for-syrian-rebels/article4457317/

– “President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.”… “A U.S. government source acknowledged that under provisions of the presidential finding, the United States was collaborating with a secret command center operated by Turkey and its allies.”… “Turkey’s moderate Islamist government has been demanding Assad’s departure with growing vehemence. Turkish authorities are said by current and former U.S. government officials to be increasingly involved in providing Syrian rebels with training and possibly equipment. European government sources said wealthy families in Saudi Arabia and Qatar were providing significant financing to the rebels. Senior officials of the Saudi and Qatari governments have publicly called for Assad’s departure.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen surface-to-air missiles, weapons that could be used against Assad’s helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Syrian government armed forces have employed such air power more extensively in recent days. NBC said the shoulder-fired missiles, also known as MANPADs, had been delivered to the rebels via Turkey.”… “Current and former U.S. and European officials previously said that weapons supplies, which were being organized and financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, were largely limited to guns and a limited number of anti-tank weapons, such as bazookas.”

New York Times, August 29, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/world/middleeast/syrian-group-in-united-states-seeks-to-arm-rebels-against-assad.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

– “The Syrian Support Group, incorporated here in April as a nonprofit, has few resources and, so far, few donations, and whether it succeeds in its larger goal remains to be seen. But it is already serving as a conduit between the United States and the armed forces seeking to topple Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and having an effect on American policy. The group has surprisingly extensive contacts among rebel commanders of the Free Syrian Army, a rare license from the Department of Treasury allowing it to sidestep sanctions and a conviction that the assistance the administration has so far offered Syrians — mainly communications equipment — is simply not enough to defeat Mr. Assad. Its members regularly consult with State Department officials, including the American ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, who has been based in Washington since the embassy in Damascus closed in February.

Their unusual relationship with the American government reflects the Obama administration’s constrained, at times convoluted policy toward Syria’s raging conflict.”… “Mr. Sakka, a telecommunications engineer in Toronto, said the group hopes to raise $7 million to help the Free Syrian Army level the playing field against Mr. Assad’s overwhelmingly superior forces with the purchase of more sophisticated weaponry, including antiaircraft and antitank missiles.”… The group became more organized last spring when it formally incorporated, started its Web site and, in May, hired a former NATO political officer, Brian Sayers, as its director of government relations in Washington after finding him through an online employment agency. That same month, it applied for a license from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to raise money for the rebels. It was granted on July 23 after the Obama administration intensified its efforts to provide humanitarian and other nonlethal assistance inside Syria. American law restricts arms sales generally, and sanctions prohibit them to Syria specifically. But while the group cannot ship weapons, it can send money that the rebels can use to buy them.”

Time Magazine, September 12, 2012:

http://world.time.com/2012/09/12/syrias-looted-past-how-ancient-artifacts-are-being-traded-for-guns/

– “Syria’s grim human toll—at least 20,000 dead, some 250,000 registered refugees and an estimated 1.2 million internally displaced, according to the UN— has been echoed by devastating attacks on the country’s archaeological heritage. All six of Syria’s UNESCO world heritage sites have been damaged by rocket, tank and small-arms fire, some “potentially irreversibly,” according to archaeologist Emma Cunliffe, a PhD researcher at the United Kingdom’s Durham University who has just published a report during the course of her Fellowship at Global Heritage Fund, which details the destruction of Syria’s historical sites. “Archaeologically speaking, Syria is a disaster zone,” she says.”

The Times, September 14, 2012:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece

– “A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt. Among more than 400 tons of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.”

Oilprice, September 17, 2012:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Qatar-Rich-and-Dangerous.html

– “The Emir declared that foreign troops should be sent into Syria.  At the Friends of Syria conference in February, Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said, “We should do whatever necessary to help [the Syrian opposition], including giving them weapons to defend themselves.” Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested?  A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.”

Time Magazine, September 18, 2012:

http://world.time.com/2012/09/18/syrias-secular-and-islamist-rebels-who-are-the-saudis-and-the-qataris-arming/

– “As TIME reports here, disorder and distrust plague two of the rebels’ international patrons: Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The two Gulf powerhouses are no longer on the same page when it comes to determining who among the plethora of mushrooming Syrian rebel groups should be armed. The rift surfaced in August, with the alleged Saudi and Qatari representatives in charge of funneling free weaponry to the rebels clearly backing different factions among the groups — including various shades of secular and Islamist militias — under the broad umbrella that is the Free Syrian Army (FSA).”…

“The middlemen of the two countries operate out of Turkey, the regional military power. Ankara has been quite public with its denunciation of Assad even as it denies any involvement in shuffling weapons across the border to Syrian rebels.”… “According to sources who have dealt with him, Saudi Arabia’s man in the Istanbul control center is a Lebanese politician named Okab Sakr. He belongs to the Future Movement, the organization of former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, which has a history of enmity with Damascus.”… “The bulk of Ahrar al-Sham’s substantial funding reportedly comes from Kuwait.”

Business Insider, October 9, 2012:

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

– “The official position is that the U.S. has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria. But there’s growing evidence that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.”… In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria. Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.”

New York Times, October 14, 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/world/middleeast/jihadists-receiving-most-arms-sent-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

– “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.”… “The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry.”

NDTV, November 9, 2012:

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/there-is-no-civil-war-in-syria-bashar-al-assad-504198

– “Instead of civil war, Assad said, Syria is facing “terrorism through proxies,” referring to foreign backing of the rebellion against his regime.”

McClatchy, December 2, 2012:

“Nearly a year later, however, Jabhat al Nusra, which U.S. officials believe has links to al Qaida, has become essential to the frontline operations of the rebels fighting to topple Assad.”… The group’s prominence makes clear the dilemma of Syria’s revolutionaries, as well as those who might provide support to them. Though members of Nusra operate independently of the other rebel groups that have taken up arms and particularly those that are calling for elections if Assad is deposed it is increasingly clear that their operations are closely coordinated with more secular rebels.”

Al-Jazeera, December 2, 2012:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212214201962755.html

– “Officials say counter-terrorism forces have arrested Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State of Iraq.”… Iraqi media has been reporting that the man in custody is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was named head of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organisation of armed groups, two years ago after the killing of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi in a US air strike in 2010. “It’s not known whether Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the man who is said to have taken over the al-Qaeda organisation here is actually Iraqi, or, in fact, even exists or is a composite of several people,” said Arraf.”

Reuters, December 7, 2012:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE8B60QX20121207

– “Syrian rebel groups meeting in Turkey elected a 30-member unified command on Friday at talks attended by security officials from international powers, delegates said. The 30 included many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists, and excluded the most senior officers who had defected from President Bashar al-Assad’s military, they said.”… “Another delegate said that two-thirds of the leadership had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or were politically allied with the group, a composition which resembles that of the civilian opposition leadership coalition created under Western and Arab auspices in Qatar last month.

“We are witnessing the result of the Qatari and Turkish creations,” the delegate said, adding that the 30 are a mix of officers who had defected from the military, which is dominated by Assad’s minority Alawite sect, and civilians-turned rebels. Security officials from the United States, Britain, France, the Gulf and Jordan have been attending the talks, which come days before a conference for the Friends of Syria, a grouping of dozens of countries that have mostly pledged non-military aid to rebels fighting to oust Assad. The new military leadership includes Jamal Marouf, an Islamist commander and Ahmad al-Issa from al-Zawiya region in Idlib, as well as Colonel Abdelbasset al-Tawil, who has links with Salafists in the province.”

Business Insider, December 9, 2012:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12

– “The Obama administration has decided to launch a covert operation to send heavy weapons to Syrian rebels, Christina Lamb of The Sunday Times of London reports. Diplomatic sources told the Sunday Times that the U.S. “bought weapons from the stockpiles of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi.”

Sunday Times, December 9, 2012:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece

– “The United States is launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time as it ramps up military efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad. Mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles will be sent through friendly Middle Eastern countries already supplying the rebels, according to well-placed diplomatic sources. The Americans have bought some of the weapons from the stockpiles of Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan dictator killed last year. They include SA-7 missiles, which can be used to shoot down aircraft.”

Daily Mail, January 29, 2013:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html –

“Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country. A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”

Yahoo, January 30, 2013:

https://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

– “The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown. A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme ‘approved by Washington’. As per the scheme ‘Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,’ the Daily Mail reports.”

New York Times, February 28, 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/world/middleeast/us-pledges-60-million-to-syrian-opposition.html

– “The United States is also providing $60 million to help the political wing of the Syrian anti-Assad coalition improve the delivery of basic services like sanitation and education in areas it has already wrested from the government’s control.”

BBC News, March 1, 2013:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21612130

– “Mr Kerry said the US would provide direct support to rebel forces in the form of medical and food supplies. He also promised an additional $60m (£40m) in aid to the opposition to help it deliver basic governance and other services in rebel-controlled areas.”

The Telegraph, March 8, 2013:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html

– “Decisions by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, to provide non-lethal assistance and training, announced in the past week, were preceded by much greater though less direct Western involvement in the rebel cause, according to a Croat newspaper. It claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November.”… “The shipments were allegedly paid for by Saudi Arabia at the bidding of the United States, with assistance on supplying the weapons organised through Turkey and Jordan, Syria’s neighbours. But the report added that as well as from Croatia, weapons came “from several other European countries including Britain”, without specifying if they were British-supplied or British-procured arms.”

The Guardian, March 8, 2013:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/08/west-training-syrian-rebels-jordan – “Western training of Syrian rebels is under way in Jordan in an effort to strengthen secular elements in the opposition as a bulwark against Islamic extremism, and to begin building security forces to maintain order in the event of Bashar al-Assad’s fall.”… “According to European and Jordanian sources the western training in Jordan has been going on since last year and is focused on senior Syrian army officers who defected.”… For western and Saudi backers of the opposition, Jordan has become a preferable option through which to channel aid than Turkey. Ankara has been criticised for allowing extremist groups, such as the al-Nusra Front, become dominant on the northern front while it focused on what it sees as the growing threat of Kurdish secessionism. “The Americans now trust us more than the Turks, because with the Turks everything is about gaining leverage for action against the Kurds,” said a Jordanian source familiar with official thinking in Amman. The US has announced an extra $60m (£40.2m) in direct aid to the rebels, including military rations and medical kits.”

Reuters, March 10, 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/us-syria-crisis-rebels-usa-idUSBRE9290FI20130310 – “Americans are training Syrian anti-government fighters in Jordan, the German weekly Der Spiegel said on Sunday”…

New York Times, April 20, 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/middleeast/kerry-says-us-to-double-aid-to-the-opposition-in-syria.html – “Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday morning that the United States would double its aid to the Syrian opposition, providing $123 million in fresh assistance.”

New York Times, April 27, 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/middleeast/islamist-rebels-gains-in-syria-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1 – “In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce. Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government. Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.”

BBC News, May 6, 2013:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188 – “Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.”

Washington Times, May 6, 2013:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ – “Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.”

The Guardian, May 8, 2013:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group

– “Syria’s main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime.”… “Illustrating their plight, FSA commanders say that entire units have gone over to al-Nusra while others have lost a quarter or more of their strength to them recently. “Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence,” said Abu Ahmed, a former teacher from Deir Hafer who now commands an FSA brigade in the countryside near Aleppo. “Al-Nusra fighters rarely withdraw for shortage of ammunition or fighters and they leave their target only after liberating it,” he added. “They compete to carry out martyrdom [suicide] operations.” Abu Ahmed and others say the FSA has lost fighters to al-Nusra in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib and Deir al-Zor and the Damascus region. Ala’a al-Basha, commander of the Sayyida Aisha brigade, warned the FSA chief of staff, General Salim Idriss, about the issue last month. Basha said 3,000 FSA men have joined al-Nusra in the last few months, mainly because of a lack of weapons and ammunition.”… “Al-Nusra has members serving undercover with FSA units so they can spot potential recruits, according to Abu Hassan of the FSA’s al-Tawhid Lions brigade.”… “Western governments say they are aware of the al-Nusra problem, which is being monitored by intelligence agencies, but they are uncertain about its extent.”

The Times of Israel, May 12, 2013:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-diplomatic-mission-in-unnamed-gulf-state/

– “A Foreign Ministry economic plan for 2013-2014, to be submitted for cabinet approval this week, revealed that Israel has established a diplomatic mission in an unnamed state in the Persian Gulf, one of 11 new diplomatic missions set up in various states around the world since 2010.”

The Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2013:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324188604578543820387158806?mobile=y – “President Barack Obama authorized his administration to provide arms to rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, officials said Thursday”

Reuters, June 19, 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-syria-rebels-islamists-specialreport-idUSBRE95I0BC20130619

– “It’s a pattern repeated elsewhere in the country. During a 10-day journey through rebel-held territory in Syria, Reuters journalists found that radical Islamist units are sidelining more moderate groups that do not share the Islamists’ goal of establishing a supreme religious leadership in the country.”… “Many pledge allegiance to the notion of a unified Free Syrian Army (FSA). But on the ground there is little evidence to suggest the FSA actually exists as a body at all.”…

“So far the Islamist groups have been the ones to attract outside support, mostly from private Sunni Muslim backers in Saudi Arabia, according to fighters in Syria.”… “The moderates are losing ground. In many parts of rebel-held Aleppo, the red, black and green revolutionary flag which represents more moderate elements has been replaced with the black Islamic flag. Small shops selling black headbands, conservative clothing and black balaclavas have popped up around the city and their business is booming. Reuters met several Islamist fighters who had left more moderate rebel brigades for hardline groups. One member of Ahrar al-Sham, who would only speak on condition of anonymity, said: “I used to be with the Free Syrian Army but they were always thinking about what they wanted to do in future. I wanted to fight oppression now.”

The Telegraph, June 19, 2013:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10131063/Syrian-rebels-get-first-heavy-weapons-on-the-front-line-of-Aleppo.html

– “Rebel sources said Russian-made “Konkurs” anti-tank missiles had been supplied by America’s key Gulf ally, Saudi Arabia. They have already been used to destructive effect and may have held up a promised regime assault on Aleppo. A handful of the missiles were already in use and in high demand after opposition forces looted them from captured regime bases. More have now arrived, confirming reports that the White House has lifted an unofficial embargo on its Gulf allies sending heavy weapons to the rebels.”… “We now have supplies from Saudi Arabia,” a rebel source said. “We have been told more weapons are on their way, even higher-end missiles.”

Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2013:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-wn-cia-syria-20130621

– “White House officials refused to comment Friday on a Los Angeles Times report that CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons since late last year, saying only that the U.S. had increased its assistance to the rebellion. The covert U.S. training at bases in Jordan and Turkey began months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming the opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders.”… “U.S. officials said the Obama administration and its allies may supply anti-tank weapons to help the rebels destroy armored vehicles used by Assad forces. They are less likely to provide portable anti-aircraft missiles, which the rebels say they need to eliminate Assad’s warplanes. U.S. officials fear those missiles would fall into the hands of the Al Nusra front, the largest of the Islamist militias in the rebel coalition, which the U.S. regards as an Al Qaeda ally. Secretary of State John F. Kerry is heading to Qatar on Saturday and will talk with other governments backing the rebels. A senior State Department official told reporters Friday that the talks would include discussions about coordinating deliveries of military aid.”

Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2013:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

– “CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and antiaircraft weapons since late last year, months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming them, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders. The covert U.S. training at bases in Jordan and Turkey, along with Obama’s decision this month to supply arms and ammunition to the rebels, has raised hope among the beleaguered Syrian opposition that Washington ultimately will provide heavier weapons as well.”… “The training began in November at a new American base in the desert in southwestern Jordan, he said. So far, about 100 rebels from Dara have attended four courses, and rebels from Damascus, the Syrian capital, have attended three, he said.”… “But arms shipments from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, provided with assent from the Americans, took months to arrive and included less than the rebels had expected.”

Washington Times, June 27, 2013:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/syrians-behead-christians-helping-military-cia-shi/

– “A priest and another Christian were beheaded before a cheering crowd by Syrian insurgents who say they aided and abetted the enemy, President Bashar Assad’s military, foreign media reported.”

The Times of Israel, July 1, 2013:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/we-have-no-beef-with-israel-syrian-islamist-rebel-group-says/

– “A Syrian rebel group operating along the Israeli border in the Golan Heights said it has no quarrel with Israel, and that its fight is with President Bashar Assad, not the Jewish state — and it will remain that way.”

McClatchy, July 7, 2013:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article24750766.html#.UdrydzvVBVI

– “The election of new leadership by the umbrella coalition of Syrian opposition figures reflects an internal policy shift toward the influence of the United States and Saudi Arabia, according to insiders and policy analysts. On Saturday in Istanbul, the Syrian Opposition Coalition, the group that the United States has designated as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, elected Ahmed Assi al Jarba, to lead the group. Jarba is described as a secular moderate with close tribal and political ties to Saudi Arabia.

New York Times, July 8, 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=1

– The main Syrian exile opposition group suffered new turbulence at the top on Monday, when the prime minister of its still-notional interim government resigned. The resignation came two days after the opposition group elected a new president as it tries to unify and arm the rebels fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad and to help civilians in rebel-held areas of Syria.”… “The prime minister, Ghassan Hitto, was appointed in March to assemble an administration that would govern rebel-held territory. It was not immediately clear why he resigned. But the opposition’s efforts to establish that administration and a unified military command, and to obtain greater military support from the West, remain nascent at best. The United States and its allies have pledged to increase aid, but so far there has been little apparent impact, and members of the coalition have complained that it is hard to make progress when the West is not fully committed to helping them.”… “Mr. Hitto, a naturalized American citizen from Damascus who lived in Texas for years, was seen by American officials as a capable technocrat. He helped manage the exile group’s humanitarian aid effort, visited rebel-held areas several times and urged his colleagues in the opposition group to visit as well.”

The Telegraph, July 31, 2013:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10215068/Wests-main-aid-group-for-Syrian-rebels-collapses-into-disarray.html

– “Even as President Bashar al-Assad has made sweeping advances across parts of his country, the Syrian Support Group (SSG) has been riven by internal divisions and struggled to raise funds.”… “One former staff member has alleged that the leadership had become “obsessed” with landing a jackpot oil deal and lost sight of its core mission to back the rebels.”… “But private donations dried up after the US State Department warned the SSG that its funds could not be used for weapons. Instead according to David Falt, a whistleblower who served as SSG’s European government affairs director, the group turned its efforts from fundraising to pursuing large and controversial oil deals under the leadership of Brian Sayers, a former Nato official.”

Huffington Post, August 1, 2013:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shank/how-arming-syrian-rebels_b_3689592.html

– “Arming one side of Syria’s multi-sided and bloody civil war will come back to haunt us. Past decisions by the U.S. to arm insurgencies in Libya, Angola, Central America and Afghanistan helped sustain brutal conflicts in those regions for decades. In the case of Afghanistan, arming the mujahideen in the 1980s created the instability that emboldened extreme militant groups and gave rise to the Taliban, which ultimately created an environment for al Qaeda to thrive.”…” Many of the approximately 17,000 anti-Assad fighters killed are simply trying to protect their families and communities from Assad’s murderous assaults. But when you lift the curtain on the armed groups with the most formidable military presence on the ground in Syria, you find the Al Nusra Front and Al Farough Brigades. Both groups are closely aligned with Al Qaeda and have directly perpetrated barbaric atrocities. The Al Nusra Front has been charged with beheadings of civilians, while a commander from the Al Farough Brigades reportedly ate the heart of a pro-Assad soldier.”

The Telegraph, August 2, 2013:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html –

“Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.”… The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels. Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out. So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress.”

The Times of Israel, August 9, 2013:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-and-the-gulf-states-its-complicated/

– “In February 2009, a few days after Israel concluded its Operation Cast Lead against Gaza terrorists, the chief of protocol at Qatar’s Foreign Ministry invited Roi Rosenblit, who at the time headed Israel’s interest office in Doha, for a meeting in his office.”… “Jerusalem is vocally advocating for stronger ties with the overwhelmingly Sunni Gulf states in the Gulf, hoping both for commercial opportunities and geo-strategic advantages. On July 18, the Israeli Foreign Ministry opened a Twitter channel exclusively “dedicated to promoting dialogue with the people of the GCC region.” The GCC, short for Cooperation Council of Arab States in the Gulf, includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait.”… “It is not difficult to figure out why the Gulf states would be interested in closer cooperation with Israel. Most importantly, the Jewish state is a regional superpower, widely assumed to possess an impressive nuclear arsenal, and has openly vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring such weapons. The Gulf states, some of which have decades-old territorial disputes with Tehran, are just as scared as Israel is of a nuclear-armed Iran.”

Reuters, August 21, 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-russia-idUSBRE97K0SB20130821

– “Russia’s Foreign Ministry called for a thorough investigation on Wednesday into reports that Syrian government forces had launched a chemical attack, suggesting that rebels could have staged the assault to provoke international action.”…

Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2013:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Syrian-rebel-forces-trained-by-West-are-moving-towards-Damascus-324033

– “The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.”

The Jerusalem Post, August 23, 2013:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Syrian-rebel-forces-trained-by-West-are-moving-towards-Damascus-324033 –

“Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.”… “The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.”

Channel 4 News (UK), August 24, 2013:

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/syria-spooks-wikileaks-military/5502

– “One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway, but all the operations being done now are being done out of ‘prudence’.”

Reuters, August 24, 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-syria-crisis-jobar-idUSBRE97N04T20130824

– “Syrian state television said government soldiers found chemical agents in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar on Saturday and some of the troops were suffocating.”

The Independent, August 27, 2013:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

– “If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.”… “Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.”

Mint Press News, August 29, 2013:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

– “However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.”… “Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.”… “More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.”

The Guardian, August 30, 2013:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

– “In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had “cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations” intended to weaken the Shi’ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. “The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria,” wrote Hersh, “a byproduct” of which is “the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups” hostile to the United States and “sympathetic to al-Qaeda.” He noted that “the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria,” with a view to pressure him to be “more conciliatory and open to negotiations” with Israel. One faction receiving covert US “political and financial support” through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.”… “Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”… “Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that “the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource.” As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has “motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states”… “In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient: “Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces… the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace… US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world…. possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”…

“The report noted especially that Syria is among several “downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow”, increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an ‘Arab Spring’, it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region’s growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.”… These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.” Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines. The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.”

The Telegraph, September 3, 2013:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10283758/First-Syria-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-CIA-on-way-to-battlefield.html

– “During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition. Mr. Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.”

Reuters, September 7, 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-aipac-idUSBRE9860D420130907

– “The influential pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee will deploy hundreds of activists next week to win support in Congress for military action in Syria, amid an intense White House effort to convince wavering U.S. lawmakers to vote for limited strikes.”

USA Today, September 8, 2013:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/08/syrian-rebels-take-christian-village/2781763/

– “Syrian rebels led by al-Qaida-linked fighters seized control of a predominantly Christian village northeast of Damascus”… “The prominence of al-Qaida-linked fighters has factored into the reluctance of Western powers to provide direct military support to the rebels.”… “Such concerns have helped Assad retain the support of large chunks of Syria’s minority communities, including Christians, Alawites, Druze and ethnic Kurds. Most of the rebels and their supporters are Sunni Muslims.”

Christian Science Monitor, September 8, 2013:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0908/As-Syria-s-war-rages-region-s-Christians-hold-their-breath

– “Syrian rebels linked with Al Qaeda have reportedly taken over the historic Christian town of Maaloula, deepening concerns that without the protection of President Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s Christians, roughly 10 percent of the population, could be left vulnerable to mass emigration or persecution.”

Market Watch, September 10, 2013:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/vietnam-911-and-now-syria-going-to-war-on-false-pretexts-2013-09-10

– “s the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, 12 former CIA, FBI, NSA, and US military officials — including Time Magazine’s 2002 person of the year, Colleen Rowley, and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who provided the daily brief for three presidents — say in an open letter to President Obama that the charge that President Assad used chemical weapons on August 21st is based on false intelligence.”

NBC News, September 10, 2013:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/extremist-element-among-syrian-rebels-growing-worry-f8C11115141

– “Debate is intensifying in Washington over the group that stands to reap the most immediate benefits from a U.S. military intervention in Syria — the Free Syrian Army, the leading alliance of rebel factions fighting to topple Bashar Assad. While the U.S. already is providing money, equipment, training and limited weaponry to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), some U.S. military officials are growing increasingly concerned about the presence of extremist Islamic groups within the overall force.”… “But a senior military official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, disagreed, claiming the percentage of radical Islamic fighters is “way higher than that,” when the definition is expanded beyond the membership of the al Qaeda affiliates. He said Pentagon officials estimate that extreme Islamist groups now constitute “more than 50 percent” of the rebel force, “and it’s growing by the day.”…  “Some FSA factions aren’t shy about advertising their radicalism, at least on some venues. An example is the al-Aqsa Islamic Brigades, a unit of the FSA, which posted an illustration of masked jihadis marching away from a burning U.S. Capitol on its Facebook page.”

Washington Post, September 11, 2013:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html –

“The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.”… “The CIA shipments are to flow through a network of clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year as the agency sought to help Middle Eastern allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, direct weapons to moderate Syrian rebel forces.”

Mother Jones, September 12, 2013:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/syrian-rebel-aid-handwritten-receipts

– “In recent weeks, the Obama administration and hawks favoring a strike on Syria have called for the continued support of supposedly moderate rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The United States has been sending millions of dollars in nonlethal aid to the rebels since February, and in June President Obama authorized secretly supplying weapons to opposition fighters. But with hundreds of Syrian rebel groups battling the regime—ranging from the relatively moderate Free Syrian Army (FSA) to the Al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front—can the administration ensure that US aid is not winding up in the wrong hands?”… “Given the makeup of the Syrian opposition forces, there is a good chance that some US assistance could find its way into the wrong hands. There are up to 150,000 rebel fighters in Syria, some of whom are not affiliated with FSA, and at least 16 percent of the rebels are considered “radical,” according to the Syrian Support Group’s own estimate. “When I worked at the [CIA’s] counterterrorism center, for Iraq we estimated that Al Qaeda made up 8 percent of the insurgency,” says Peritz. “This is way worse—this means there are at least 15,000 extremists in Syria.”

Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2013:

http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328 – ““Bad guys” backed by Iran are worse for Israel than “bad guys” who are not supported by the Islamic Republic, Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the US Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post in a parting interview.”… “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,” he said.”… “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” he said, adding that this designation did not apply to everyone in the Syrian opposition. “Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”

Washington Post, September 18, 2013:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/al-qaeda-linked-fighters-seize-syrian-town-of-azaz-from-more-moderate-rebels/2013/09/18/113e0954-20ad-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html

– “Al-Qaeda-linked militants seized a key northern Syrian town from rebels on Wednesday, as mounting friction between anti-­government extremists and more moderate, Western-backed opposition factions erupted into all-out conflict.”

New York Times, September 25, 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/world/middleeast/syria-crisis.html?ref=world&_r=2&

– “As diplomats at the United Nations push for a peace conference to end Syria’s civil war, a collection of some of the country’s most powerful rebel groups have publicly abandoned the opposition’s political leaders, casting their lot with an affiliate of Al Qaeda. As support for the Western-backed leadership has dwindled, a second, more extreme Al Qaeda group has carved out footholds across parts of Syria, frequently clashing with mainline rebels who accuse it of making the establishment of an Islamic state a priority over the fight to topple President Bashar al-Assad.”…

The Times of Israel, October 2, 2013:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-gulf-states-said-discussing-new-alliance-to-stop-iran/

– “Israel has held a series of meetings with prominent figures from a number of Gulf and other Arab states in recent weeks in an attempt to muster a new alliance capable of blocking Iran’s drive toward nuclear weapons, Israel’s Channel 2 reported Wednesday.”… “A number of Sunni countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have been vocally opposed to Iran’s nuclear program, placing them and Israel on the same side of the debate.”

Public Accountability Initiative, October 11, 2013:

http://public-accountability.org/2013/10/conflicts-of-interest-in-the-syria-debate/

– “The media debate surrounding the question of whether to launch a military attack on Syria in August and September of 2013 was dominated by defense industry-backed experts and think tanks. These individuals and organizations are linked to dozens of defense and intelligence contractors, defense-focused investment firms, and diplomatic consulting firms with strong defense ties, yet these business ties were rarely disclosed on air or in print. This report brings transparency to these largely undocumented and undisclosed connections.”

Yahoo, November 25, 2013:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/want-cut-government-waste-8-5-trillion-pentagon-142321339.html

– “Special Enterprise Reporter Scot Paltrow unearthed the “high cost of the Pentagon’s bad bookkeeping” in a Reuters investigation. It amounts to $8.5 trillion in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for.”

Reuters, December 14, 2013:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9BD08D20131214

– “Syrian rebel commanders from the Islamic Front which seized control of bases belonging to Western-backed rebels last week are due to hold talks with U.S. officials in Turkey in coming days, rebel and opposition sources said on Saturday.”

The National, December 28, 2013:

http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/syrian-rebels-get-arms-and-advice-through-secret-command-centre-in-amman#full

– “A secret operations command centre in Jordan, staffed by western and Arab military officials, has given vital support to rebels fighting on Syria’s southern front, providing them with weapons and tactical advice on attacking regime targets.”… “However, according to opposition figures, the command centre – known as “the operations room” – is a well-run operation staffed by high-ranking military officials from 14 countries, including the US, European nations and Arabian Gulf states, the latter providing the bulk of materiel and financial support to rebel factions.”

Foreign Policy, December 17, 2013:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/17/u-s-weighing-closer-ties-with-hardline-islamists-in-syria/#sthash.vGadKsye.oeJLihrk.dpbs

– “As the moderate faction of the Syrian rebellion implodes under the strain of vicious infighting and diminished resources, the United States is increasingly looking to hard-line Islamists in its efforts to gain leverage in Syria’s civil war. The development has alarmed U.S. observers concerned that the radical Salafists do not share U.S. values and has dismayed supporters of the Free Syrian Army who believe the moderates were set up to fail.”… “On Monday, the State Department confirmed its openness to engaging with the Islamic Front following the group’s seizure of a Free Syrian Army headquarters last week containing U.S.-supplied small arms and food. “We wouldn’t rule out the possibility of meeting with the Islamic Front,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Monday. “We can engage with the Islamic Front, of course, because they’re not designated terrorists. We’re always open to meeting with a wide range of opposition groups. Obviously, it may make sense to do so at some point soon, and if we have something to announce, we will.”… “Soon after its creation, the Islamic Front signed a charter that made it clear the group aimed to create a Sunni theocracy, not a Western-style democracy. The document rejected the prospect of any sort of representative government, arguing that in Islam, only “God is the sovereign.” It explicitly rejects secularism as “contradictory to Islam,” and argues that Syria’s ethnic and religious minorities can be protected on the basis of Islamic law. Some of the comments from the Islamic Front’s top leaders support the contention that the group’s ideology comes dangerously close to that of al Qaeda though the front is not aligned with the terrorist network.”

The Telegraph, January 21, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10588308/US-secretly-backs-rebels-to-fight-al-Qaeda-in-Syria.html

– “The United States and Gulf countries have been secretly backing efforts by opposition rebels to destroy al-Qaeda’s most extreme wing in Syria, diplomats and rebels involved in the plan have told The Telegraph.”… “One source said the US was itself handing out millions of dollars to rebel groups best equipped to take on the extremists while another confirmed America was providing non-lethal aid.”… “The Syrian Revolutionary Front, whose main commander, Jamal Maarouf, is allied to Saudi Arabia, and the Army of Islam, a new coalition of the moderate rebels sponsored by Qatar, have continued to liaise with the CIA and Saudi and Qatari intelligence, others close to meetings said.”… “Washington did not directly give arms, he said, but backed Saudi Arabia in its funding of the groups. The United States has, however, also been giving $2 million in cash every month as an unofficial hand out, splitting that amount between western friendly rebel groups, the source added.”

Foreign Affairs (CFR), January 23, 2014:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2014-01-23/good-and-bad-ahrar-al-sham

– “The Good and Bad of Ahrar al-Sham, An al Qaeda–Linked Group Worth Befriending”

New York Times, January 28, 2014:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/world/middleeast/rebels-in-syria-claim-control-of-resources.html

– “Islamist rebels and extremist groups have seized control of most of Syria’s oil and gas resources, a rare generator of cash in the country’s war-battered economy, and are now using the proceeds to underwrite their fights against one another as well as President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say. While the oil and gas fields are in serious decline, control of them has bolstered the fortunes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and the Nusra Front, both of which are offshoots of Al Qaeda.”

Vice, February 4, 2014:

http://www.vice.com/read/syrias-christian-minority-are-fighting-back2

– “Sutoro, the name the organization goes under, means “police” in Syriac, the language of the Assyrian Christians of the area—the Hasakah Governorate in the northeast of the country. The group has been described as a Christian militia, but it’s really a neighborhood watch, albeit with arrest powers and automatic weapons. Its members patrol the streets of Qahtaniya, Al-Malikiyah and Qamishli, towns and cities where people—mostly Kurds, but also Christians and Sunni Arabs—are locked in a brutal struggle against Islamist militants, some of them with ties to al Qaeda.”

Haaretz, February 24, 2014:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.576083

– “U.S., Saudi Arabia and Jordan are reportedly helping rebels plan attack starting in south and spreading to Damascus.”… “According to reports in the Syrian media and on websites run by the opposition, Jordan is replacing – or perhaps has already replaced – Turkey as the rebels’ new base of operations.”… Meanwhile, the United States is constructing runways for reconnaissance aircraft near the border between Jordan and Syria, and in recent weeks Saudi Arabia has flown weaponry and ammunition purchased in Ukraine to bases in Jordan.”

The Jewish Press, February 24, 2014:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/report-commander-of-syrian-rebels-trained-in-israel/2014/02/24/

– “Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir, the new commander of the Free Syrian Army, secretly trained in Israel last year after being admitted into to the country for medical treatment, according to the Arabic language Al-Ahd website. He was transferred to a hospital in Israel after he was wounded in a military operation. Rumors spread that he died and was buried in Syria, allegedly to distract attention from his training in Israel.”

Reuters, March 9. 2014:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/09/us-iraq-saudi-qatar-idUSBREA2806S20140309

– “Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of openly funding the Sunni Muslim insurgents his troops are battling in western Anbar province, in his strongest such statement since fighting started there early this year.”

Haaretz, March 16, 2014:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.580169

– “The Syrian opposition is willing to give up claims to the Golan Heights in return for cash and Israeli military aid against President Bashar Assad, a top opposition official told Al Arab newspaper, according to a report in Al Alam.”

New York Times, March 24, 2014:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

– “With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad”… “Although rebel commanders and the data indicate that Qatar and Saudi Arabia had been shipping military materials via Turkey to the opposition since early and late 2012”… “Simultaneously, arms and equipment were being purchased by Saudi Arabia in Croatia and flown to Jordan on Jordanian cargo planes for rebels working in southern Syria and for retransfer to Turkey for rebels groups operating from there, several officials said.”

Pakistan Today, March 29, 2014:

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2014/03/29/foreign/obama-meets-abdullah-considers-sending-manpads-to-syrian-rebels/

– “President Barack Obama is considering allowing shipments of new air defense systems to the Syrian opposition, a US official said, as Obama sought to reassure Saudi Arabia´s king that the US is not taking too soft a stance in Syria and other Mideast conflicts.”

PRI, April 1, 2014:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-01/one-toyota-pickup-truck-top-shopping-list-free-syrian-army-and-taliban

– “The Hilux, a pickup truck Toyota has built since the late 1960s, isn’t available in the US, but it’s popular around the globe, including with insurgent groups such as the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram.”… “Recently, when the US State Department resumed sending non-lethal aid to Syrian rebels, the delivery list included 43 Toyota trucks. Hiluxes were on the Free Syrian Army’s wish list. Oubai Shahbander, a Washington-based advisor to the Syrian National Coalition, is a fan of the truck.”

The Independent, April 2, 2014:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/i-am-not-fighting-againstalqaida-itsnot-our-problem-says-wests-last-hope-in-syria-9233424.html

– “The rebel leader touted as the West’s last hope to stem the tide of extreme jihadist groups in Syria has said he will not fight against al-Qa’ida, and openly admits to battling alongside them. Speaking from a safe house on the outskirts of the Turkish town of Antakya, Jamal Maarouf, the leader of the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF) told The Independent that the fight against al-Qa’ida was “not our problem” and admitted his fighters conduct joint operations with Jabhat al-Nusra – the official al-Qa’ida branch in Syria.”

Washington Post, April 14, 2013:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-feeds-syrians-but-secretly/2013/04/14/bfbc0ba6-a3b3-11e2-bd52-614156372695_story.html –

“To circumvent the shortfall, the United States has earmarked $90 million of its contribution for nongovernmental organizations to operate in rebel areas, making it the largest Western donor of aid to the parts of Syria that have slipped beyond government control.”

Time Magazine, April 21, 2014:

http://time.com/68336/syria-obama-anti-aircraft-missiles/

– “A former CIA director has called them “our worst nightmare.” A 2005 study found that just one could blow a $15 billion hole in the world economy. And the Obama Administration is thinking about sending them to Syria. They are shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, capable of knocking helicopters and low-flying planes out of the sky. Syria’s rebels and their Arab government backers insist those weapons could decisively reverse the momentum in Syria’s three-year civil war, which may recently have shifted in favor of Bashar Assad’s regime.”

PBS, May 26, 2014:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syria-arming-the-rebels/syrian-rebels-describe-u-s-backed-training-in-qatar/

– “With reports indicating that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad are gaining ground in that country’s brutal civil war, moderate Syrian rebels have told a visiting journalist that the United States is arranging their training in Qatar. In a documentary to be aired Tuesday night, the rebels describe their clandestine journey from the Syrian battlefield to meet with their American handlers in Turkey and then travel on to Qatar, where they say they received training in the use of sophisticated weapons and fighting techniques, including, one rebel said, “how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”… “The weapons are believed to have come from Saudi Arabia, but experts on international arms transfers have told McClatchy that they could not have been given to the rebels without the approval of the Obama administration.”… “Moderate rebel groups have worked closely with the al Qaida-aligned Nusra Front and the Islamic Front, one of whose factions, Ahrar al Sham, includes al Qaida members among its founders.”

Foreign Policy, June 11, 2014:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/11/exclusive-israel-is-tending-to-wounded-syrian-rebels/

– “Israel is quietly cultivating ties with moderate Syrian rebel groups operating along the country’s U.N.-monitored cease-fire line with Syria, providing medical care and other unidentified supplies to the insurgents”… “Once in Israel, they receive medical treatment in a field clinic before being sent back to Syria, where, presumably, some will return to carry on the fight.”… “The Israeli government has been providing medical assistance to Syria’s wounded for more than a year”

International Business Times, June 11, 2014:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190

– “The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Isis) has become the richest terror group ever after looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars – the equivalent of $429m (£256m) – from Mosul’s central bank, according to the regional governor. Nineveh governor Atheel al-Nujaifi confirmed Kurdish televison reports that Isis militants had stolen millions from numerous banks across Mosul. A large quantity of gold bullion is also believed to have been stolen.”

Irish Times, June 12, 2014:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iraq-army-capitulates-to-isis-militants-in-four-cities-1.1828973

– “Iraq is facing its gravest test since the US-led invasion more than a decade ago, after its army capitulated to Islamist insurgents who have seized four cities and pillaged military bases and banks, in a lightning campaign which seems poised to fuel a cross-border insurgency endangering the entire region. The extent of the Iraqi army’s defeat at the hands of militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) became clear yesterday when officials in Baghdad conceded that insurgents had stripped the main army base in the northern city of Mosul of weapons, released hundreds of prisoners from the city’s jails and may have seized up to $480 million in banknotes from the city’s banks. Iraqi officials said two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters.”

The Independent, June 12, 2014:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iraq-crisis-sunni-caliphate-has-been-bankrolled-by-saudi-arabia-9533396.html

– “So after the grotesquerie of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 suicide killers of 9/11, meet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.”…”The story of Iraq and the story of Syria are the same – politically, militarily and journalistically: two leaders, one Shia, the other Alawite, fighting for the existence of their regimes against the power of a growing Sunni Muslim international army. While the Americans support the wretched Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his elected Shia government in Iraq, the same Americans still demand the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his regime, even though both leaders are now brothers-in-arms against the victors of Mosul and Tikrit.”

Hurriyet Daily News, June 13, 2014:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/chp-lawmakers-accuse-turkish-government-of-protecting-isil-and-al-nusra-militants.aspx?pageID=238&nID=67750&NewsCatID=338

– “Two lawmakers from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) have accused the government of protecting and cooperating with jihadist militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the al-Nusra Front, while the Turkish government quickly denied the claim.”

ABC News (Australian), June 13, 2014:

http://www.news.com.au/world/iraqi-sunni-insurgents-seize-huge-cache-of-usmade-arms-and-equipment/story-fndir2ev-1226952811362

– “The Iraq government forces abandoned their arms and ammunition as they fled the horde of Sunni gunmen streaming into the war-torn nation’s second largest city earlier this week. Most of that equipment was supplied by the United States. It was supposed to give Iraqi government forces a technological edge over their tribesman opponents as US troops withdrew following their 2003 invasion. Much of that edge is now in enemy hands.

Al-Monitor, June 13, 2014:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/business/2014/06/turkey-syria-isis-selling-smuggled-oil.html#

– “The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has been selling smuggled Syrian oil in Turkey worth $800 million, according to Ali Ediboglu, a lawmaker for the border province of Hatay from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP).”… “They transfer the oil to Turkey and parlay it into cash. They take the oil from the refineries at zero cost. Using primitive means, they refine the oil in areas close to the Turkish border and then sell it via Turkey. This is worth $800 million.”

The Daily Beast, June 14, 2014:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html

– “The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), now threatening Baghdad, was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror.”… “But in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”… “Gulf donors support ISIS, the Syrian branch of al Qaeda called the al Nusrah Front, and other Islamic groups fighting on the ground in Syria because they feel an obligation to protect Sunnis suffering under the atrocities of the Assad regime. Many of these backers don’t trust or like the American backed moderate opposition”…

The Guardian, June 15, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power

– “The capitulation of the military and the rapid advances of the insurgents have dramatically changed the balance of power in Iraq, crippled prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, allowed Kurdish forces to seize control of the disputed city of Kirkuk and galvanised a Shia fightback along sectarian lines, posing a serious threat to the region’s fragile geopolitics. On Sunday Isis published photographs that appeared to show it capturing and killing dozens of Iraqi soldiers. “By the end of the week, we soon realised that we had to do some accounting for them,” said the official flippantly. “Before Mosul, their total cash and assets were $875m [£515m]. Afterwards, with the money they robbed from banks and the value of the military supplies they looted, they could add another $1.5bn to that.”… “The scale of Isis’s resources seems to have prepared it for the improbable. But even by its ruthless standards, occupying two major cities in Iraq in three days, holding on to parts of Falluja and Ramadi, and menacing Kirkuk and Samara, was quite an accomplishment.”

The Guardian, June 16, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/16/blowback-isis-iraq-manufactured-oil-addiction

– “The meteoric rise of Isis is a predictable consequence of a longstanding US-led geostrategy in the Middle East that has seen tyrants and terrorists as tools to expedite access to regional oil and gas resources. Since the second world war, as British historian Mark Curtis documented extensively in his seminal study, The Ambiguities of Power, US and UK goals in the Middle East have focused on oil. As a secret British document from 1958 explained: “The major British and other western interests in the Persian Gulf [are] (a) to ensure free access for Britain and other Western countries to oil produced in States bordering the Gulf; (b) to ensure the continued availability of that oil on favourable terms and for surplus revenues of Kuwait; (c) to bar the spread of Communism and pseudo-Communism in the area and subsequently to defend the area against the brand of Arab nationalism.”…

“While Saddam Hussein was fighting Iran abroad, not to mention gassing Kurds and Shi’ites at home using the vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons sold to him by the US, Britain, France, Germany, among others, he was our man: In 1988, when Saddam’s forces were strafing Halabja with mustard gas and nerve toxins, massacring 5,000 civilians, US imports of Iraqi oil had rocketed to 126 million barrels – essentially one out of every four barrels of Iraqi oil exports. This was a special relationship. US oil companies received a discount of $1 per barrel below prices charged to European companies.”… “Stratfor warned presciently that: “The new government’s attempts to establish control over all of Iraq may well lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish ethnic groups… The fiercest fighting could be expected for control over the oil facilities” – exactly the scenario unfolding now.”… “both the Bush and Obama administration have – through Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states – fostered extremist Sunni groups affiliated to al-Qaida across the Middle East to counter Iranian influence.”

International Business Times, June 16, 2014:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-crisis-are-isis-execution-photos-fake-1452833

– “Gruesome pictures posted on Twitter by militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) may not be authentic, according to human rights activists.”… “The quality of these images raises doubts: the colour seems too good, the quantity of pixels is above expectation and exposure is accurate,” she wrote. The composition of the images also suggests that the maker “had some kind of visual training in making pictures and editing them”. “We should be doubtful about the provenance of the images,” she concluded.”

Arutz Sheva, June 18, 2014:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181886#.VdyHGJfnhqw

– “The radical Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has seized control of Iraq’s largest oil refinery, as the Shia-led government makes a desperate push to keep them from the capital Baghdad.”

DW News, June 19, 2014:

http://www.dw.com/en/who-finances-isis/a-17720149

– “During its conquest of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, ISIS fighters looted more than 500 billion Iraqi Dinar, worth about $420 million (308 million euros) at current exchange rates. ISIS is a rebel army composed of Sunni jihadis that calls itself the “Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria.” Its aim is to establish a theocratic Sunni caliphate in the region. Iraqi officials estimate that the group now has about $2 billion in its war chest. What remains controversial is where the bulk of its money comes from. Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government accuses Saudi Arabia of supporting the ISIS jihadis. On Tuesday (17.06.2014), Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki said “we hold Saudi Arabia responsible” for the financial and moral support given to ISIS.”… “Günter Meyer is Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at the University of Mainz. Meyer says he has no doubt about where ISIS gets its funding.

“The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” Meyer told Deutsche Welle. The Gulf states’ motivation in financing groups like ISIS was to support their fight against the regime of President Bashar al Assad in Syria, according to Meyer. Three quarters of the Syrian population are Sunni Muslims, but Syria is ruled by an elite drawn mostly from the Alawite minority. The Alawites are an offshoot of Shiite Islam.”… “Additional key financing sources for ISIS, according to Meyer, are the oil fields of northern Syria. “ISIS was able to get those oil fields under their control. They use trucks to bring oil over the border into Turkey. That’s an important source of funding for them.”… “ISIS’ biggest financial coup so far was no doubt the looting of the central bank in Mosul, which brought them the equivalent of about $429 million in cash.”

Al-Arabiya News, June 22, 2014:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/06/22/NGO-Syria-jihadists-now-using-Humvees-seized-in-Iraq-.html

– “Jihadists fighting in Syria’s war put to use for the first time on Sunday American-made Humvees that they seized during a lightening offensive in Iraq this month, a monitor said. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, used the armored vehicles to capture the villages of Eksar and Maalal in Aleppo province, which borders Turkey, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.”

The Telegraph, June 25, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/10925602/Al-Qaeda-merges-with-Isis-at-Syria-Iraq-border-town.html

– “Al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot has issued a loyalty pledge to Isis at a remote town on the Iraqi border, a monitor said.”… “After months of clashes between the two sides, al-Qaeda’s official Syrian arm the al-Nusra Front “pledged loyalty to Isis” in Albu Kamal, said Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman.”

BBC News, June 26, 2014:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28042309

– “President Barack Obama has asked the US Congress to approve $500m (£294m) to train and equip what he described as “moderate” Syrian opposition forces.”…” Tens of thousands of people have died and millions more have been displaced in three years of civil war in Syria”

Washington Post, June 26, 2014:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-backs-us-military-training-for-syrian-rebels/2014/06/26/ead59104-fd62-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPN

– “The Obama administration asked Congress on Thursday to authorize $500 million in direct U.S. military training and equipment for Syrian opposition fighters, a move that could significantly escalate U.S. involvement in Syria’s civil war. Money for the assistance, which would expand a CIA covert training program, is included in a $65.8 billion request for the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO.”

Business Insider, June 27, 2014:

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-funding-us-allies-2014-6

-“But the group is also receiving private donations from wealthy Sunnis in American-allied Gulf nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and, possibly, Saudi Arabia.”… In Kuwait, donors have taken advantage of weak terror financing control laws to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to various Syrian rebel groups, including ISIS, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, which receives some funding from the government of Qatar.”…

Middle East Monitor, July 2, 2014:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/12505-official-isis-is-selling-iraqi-oil

– “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has started selling oil extracted from wells close to the Hamrin Mountains, the head official in Tuzhurmatu, in the northern Iraqi province of Salahuddin, said.”

Arutz Sheva, July 3, 2014:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182482#.VdyHLJfnhqw

– “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) continues to roll forward, adding to its collection of captured resources the Al-Omar Oil Field, the largest oil field in Syria located in the eastern Deir al-Zour province of the war-torn country, near the Iraqi border. The Islamist group has already amassed great assets during its blitz offensive in Iraq, seizing Iraq’s largest oil refinery, a chemical weapons facility, and becoming the “world’s richest terrorist organization” by looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars ($425 million) from banks in Mosul.”

Arutz Sheva, July 5, 2014:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182534#.VdyHMZfnhqw

– “Jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) seized an eastern Syrian oil field near Iraq and inched closer to the Turkish border on Friday, The Associated Press (AP) reported. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that fighters from the group seized the al-Tanak oil field early Friday. Another group, the activist collective of Deir el-Zour, also reported the seizure. The field is in the eastern Syrian province of Deir el-Zour, near Iraq, and it followed the group’s seizure of Syria’s largest oil field on Thursday. Both oil fields were taken from other rebel groups.”

Al-Arabiya News, July 5, 2014:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/05/ISIS-destroys-Shiite-mosques-shrines-in-Iraq.html

– “Jihadists who overran Mosul last month have demolished ancient shrines and mosques in and around the historic northern Iraqi city, residents and social media posts said Saturday.”

The Guardian, July 6, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/06/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-isis

– “For a man so mysterious that there are only two known photographs of him, it was a brazen public debut. The most wanted man in the Middle East, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is also one of the most elusive, an evanescent figure behind the Islamist insurrection sweeping the Syrian and Iraqi interior.”…”Six months in detention was a major step in his transformation from devout Muslim to committed jihadist. However, it was another four years before he would assume the leadership of the movement, taking over from Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who was killed in a US-led raid near Falluja.”

Iraq Oil Report, July 9, 2014:

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/security/energy-sector/isis-earning-1-million-per-day-iraqi-oil-smuggling-12657/

– “Since invading huge swaths of northern and central Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has been smuggling increasing amounts of crude scavenged from Iraq’s stricken oil infrastructure to buyers in the Kurdistan region, earning the extremist group an estimated $1 million per day.”

Mother Jones, July 11, 2014:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/was-camp-bucca-pressure-cooker-extremism

– “In short order, Baghdadi has become Iraq’s most prominent extremist leader. But for much of his adult life, Baghdadi did not have a reputations as a fiery, jihadist trailblazer. According to the Telegraph, members of his local mosque in Tobchi (a neighborhood in Baghdad) who knew him from around 1989 until 2004 (when he was between the ages of 18 and 33) considered Baghdadi a quiet, studious fellow and a talented soccer player. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Baghdadi was earning a degree in Islamic studies in Baghdad. But within a couple years of the US invasion, Baghdadi was a prisoner in Camp Bucca, the US-run detainment facility in Umm Qasr, Iraq.”… “The details of Baghdadi’s time in Camp Bucca are murky. Some media reports note that he was held as a “civilian internee” at the prison for 10 months in 2004. Others report that he was captured by US forces in 2005 and spent four years at Camp Bucca. The reason why he was apprehended is not publicly known; he could have been arrested on a specific charge or as part of a large sweep of insurgents or insurgent supporters.”

The Sacramento Bee, July 12, 2014:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/article2603657.html

– “One week after radical Islamists in Iraq declared a “Caliphate” spanning the Iraqi-Syria border with its capital in Mosul, Al Qaida’s affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al Nusra, said it is setting up an “Emirate” in besieged rebel-held parts of Aleppo.”… “Baghdadi had supported the Nusra movement after its founding in early 2012, providing manpower and weapons. But in April 2013, he announced the creation of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which he said would supersede Nusra. Jolani rejected the takeover, and re-established Nusra, and by early this year the two extremist groups were engaged in armed clashes. Jolani’s statement Friday appeared to be an attempt to head off defections to Baghdadi’s Islamic State. In critical towns along Syria’s border with Iraq, Nusra fighters have switched sides and joined the Islamic State.”

The Independent, July 13, 2014:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

– “How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world? Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”… “He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.”… “There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.”… “The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which have always found Sunni jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March 2011. Some 1,500 Saudi troops were sent across the causeway to the island kingdom as the demonstrations were ended with great brutality and Shia mosques and shrines were destroyed.”

McClatchy, June 14, 2014:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article24770476.html

– “Iraqi and U.S. officials have confirmed that fighters allied with the Islamic State not only captured hundreds of U.S.-supplied Humvees and large amounts of ammunition in their march across Iraq, but they also now possess as many as 52 U.S.-supplied artillery pieces with GPS aiming systems. The 155mm guns have a range of 20 miles, putting many Iraqi cities still in government hands easily within range of Islamic State positions.”… Of more use, he said, would be the 52 155mm M198 howitzers that have apparently fallen into Islamic State hands. The guns, which cost more than $500,000 each, can fire two rounds every minute, and while Binnie said he doubted that the Islamists would be able to learn how to fire them with pinpoint accuracy quickly, he said, “They shouldn’t have too much trouble shelling large area targets like a city if they have sufficient ammo.” Among the weapons that fell to the Islamic State also were 4,000 PKC machine guns, a heavy belt-fed weapon that’s been standard for combat forces since the Vietnam War and can fire as many as 800 rounds a minute.”

Washington Post, July 19, 2014:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/19/christians-flee-mosul-after-isil-threat-convert-is/

– “Christians in Iraq are heeding an ultimatum by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to convert to Islam, get out or be killed. Reports from the Middle East say that large numbers of Christians have fled the northern city of Mosul — now under control of the ISIL — after a message warning them to get out by Saturday was broadcast by loudspeakers on the city’s mosques.”

Al-Arabiya News, July 19, 2014:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/19/270-Syrian-fighters-killed-in-biggest-ISIS-operation-.html

– “The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is now in control of 35 percent of the Syrian territory following a string of victories, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Friday.”

DW News, July 21, 2014:

http://www.dw.com/en/isis-militants-take-over-christian-monastery-in-iraq/a-17799069

– “Fighters with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) stormed the Saint Behnam monastery on Monday, located 30 kilometers (20 miles) southeast of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. News agency AFP quoted a cleric who heard the militants saying, “You have no place here anymore; you have to leave immediately.” The monks were reportedly forced to abandon all their possessions and leave the monastery with nothing except the clothes they were wearing.”

Al-Jazeera, July 22, 2014:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/last-remaining-christians-flee-iraq-mosul-201472118235739663.html – “The last remaining Christians now have fled Mosul after Islamic State militants issued an ultimatum giving them until noon on July 19, the option to convert to Islam, pay a tax, leave, or be killed if they stayed.”… “In 2003, it was thought that Christians in Mosul numbered 35,000. The number dwindled due to a wave of migration. Some estimates put the most recent numbers at 3,000 Christians out of a city of 2 million people. Before the ultimatum, Michael says only a few hundred Christian families remained in the city.”

The Guardian, July 24, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/iraqi-christians-mosul-isis-convert-islam-or-be-executed

– “Iraqi Christians who were forced to flee the northern city of Mosul under threat of forced conversion or execution by jihadists have spoken of their terror as churches were turned into mosques and their homes and property confiscated. The expulsion of one of the world’s oldest Christian communities provoked condemnation and anguish from figures as diverse as the pope and Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who lambasted the Islamic State (Isis) for its “criminality and terrorism”.”

CNN, July 25, 2014:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/24/world/iraq-violence/index.html

– “If you blink during the video, you might miss the moment an explosion destroys what is said to have been the tomb of Jonah, a key figure in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The first few frames show the revered shrine towering over its landscape. Then comes a sudden burst of dust, fire and smoke. Then, nothing. Militants with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, planted explosives around the tomb and detonated them remotely Thursday, civil defense officials there told CNN.”

Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2014:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Islamic-State-fighter-Turkey-paved-the-way-for-us-369443

– “Prime Minister’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s “AKP government has helped us a lot” since the war in Syria began, an Islamic State fighter told a Turkish journalist.”… “Turkey paved the way for us. Had Turkey not shown such understanding for us, the Islamic State would not be in its current place. It [Turkey] showed us affection. Large number of our mujahedeen [jihadis] received medical treatment in Turkey,” he said.”…

The Guardian, August 6, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat

“Tens of thousands of members of one of Iraq’s oldest minorities have been stranded on a mountain in the country’s north-west, facing slaughter at the hands of jihadists surrounding them below if they flee, or death by dehydration if they stay. UN groups say at least 40,000 members of the Yazidi sect, many of them women and children, have taken refuge in nine locations on Mount Sinjar, a craggy, mile-high ridge identified in local legend as the final resting place of Noah’s ark. At least 130,000 more people, many from the Yazidi stronghold of Sinjar, have fled to Dohuk, in the Kurdish north, or to Irbil, where regional authorities have been struggling since June to deal with one of the biggest and most rapid refugee movements in decades.”

The Telegraph, August 7, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11018298/Islamic-State-pulls-down-church-crosses-in-northern-Iraq-as-200000-flee.html

– “Islamic State jihadists who took over large areas of northern Iraq overnight have forced thousands of Christians to flee and occupied churches, removing crosses and destroying manuscripts, Chaldean Patriarch Louis Sako has said.”

Reuters, August 7, 2014:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/iraq-security-pope-idINKBN0G718P20140807

– “Pope Francis appealed to world leaders on Thursday to help end the crisis in northern Iraq after a sweeping advance by radical Islamic state militants forced thousands of residents of Iraq’s biggest Christian town to flee their homes.”

The Independent, August 7, 2014:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-takes-iraqs-largest-christian-town-of-qaraqosh-9653789.html – “Christians from the town of Qaraqosh were fleeing today after it was taken by fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on Wednesday night.”

The Independent, August 12, 2014:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-un-warns-yazidis-refugees-trapped-on-mount-sinjar-are-facing-imminent-genocide-from-is-militants-9665003.html

“The United Nations has warned that a mass atrocity or genocide of refugees in the Mount Sinjar region of northern Iraq could still happen “within days or hours”. The UN’s special rapporteur who has been investigating the plight of 40,000 mainly Kurdish-speaking Yazidis who fled to the mountain fearing attacks from the extremist militants of the Islamic State (IS), said the world urgently needed to recognise the severity of the humanitarian crisis.”

The Times of Israel, August 13, 2014:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-commander-says-he-collaborated-with-israel/

– “A Free Syrian Army commander, arrested last month by the Islamist militia Al-Nusra Front, told his captors he collaborated with Israel in return for medical and military support, in a video released this week.”

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 13, 2014:

http://www.jta.org/2014/08/13/news-opinion/world/dutch-justice-ministry-employee-isis-a-zioist-conspiracy#ixzz3AOhp8bqh

– “A senior employee of the Dutch Justice Ministry said the jihadist group ISIS was created by Zionists seeking to give Islam a bad reputation.”

The Atlantic, August 14, 2014:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/isis-a-short-history/376030/

– “ISI’s ranks were swelled by former Sons of Iraq, many of whom had previously been commanders and soldiers in Saddam’s military. This gave Baghdadi’s fighters the air of an army, rather than a rag-tag militant outfit.”

Washington Post, August 18, 2014:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/18/the-terrorists-fighting-us-now-we-just-finished-training-them/

– “In recent years, President Obama, his European friends, and even some Middle Eastern allies, have supported “rebel groups” in Libya and Syria. Some received training, financial and military support to overthrow Muammar Gadhafi and battle Bashar al Assad. It’s a strategy that follows the old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and it has been the American and allied approach for decades in deciding whether to support opposition groups and movements.”… “In the East of Syria, there is no Free Syrian Army any longer. All Free Syrian Army people [there] have joined the Islamic State,” says Abu Yusaf, a high-level security commander of the Islamic State, whom The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola wrote about last week.”… “There had [also] been … some British and Americans who had trained us during the Arab Spring times in Libya,” said a man who calls himself Abu Saleh and who only agreed to be interviewed if his real identity remained secret. Abu Saleh, who is originally from a town close to Benghazi, said he and a group of other Libyans received training and support in their country from French, British, and American military and intelligence personnel — before they joined the Al Nusra Front or the Islamic State. Western and Arab military sources interviewed for this article, confirmed Abu Saleh’s account that “training” and “equipment” were given to rebels in Libya during the fight against the Gadhafi regime. Abu Saleh left Libya in 2012 for Turkey and then crossed into Syria. “First I fought under what people call the ‘Free Syrian Army’ but then switched to Al Nusra. And I have already decided I will join the Islamic State when my wounds are healed,” the 28-year-old said from a hospital in Turkey, where he is receiving medical treatment.”

Raw Story, August 20, 2014:

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/german-minister-accuses-qatar-of-funding-islamic-state-fighters/

– “German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar on Wednesday of financing Islamic State militants”… “In March, David Cohen, the U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, cited reports of Qatari backing for Islamist fighters in Syria and described this as a “permissive jurisdiction” for donors funding militants.”

New York Times, August 21, 2014:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/world/middleeast/isis-believed-to-have-as-many-as-17000-fighters.html?_r=0

– “The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria cannot be defeated unless the United States or its partners take on the Sunni militants in Syria, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.”… “In the current battle with ISIS inside Iraq, Mr. Obama’s military strategy has been aimed at containing the militant organization rather than defeating it, according to Defense Department officials and military experts.”

Interactive Investor, August 21, 2014:

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn%3AGKP.L&display=discussion&threshold=0&action=detail&id=11338779

– “The accusations of a Kurdish role in the export of oil lifted by ISIS comes amid a long-running dispute between Baghdad and the government of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region in Erbil.”… “Throughout the recent crisis, Iraqi Kurdistan has continued to export oil. A number of tankers loaded with Kurdish oil have been shipping to European countries in recent weeks, and Turkish officials told Reuters on Thursday the pipeline from Kurdistan to Turkey was up and running again after being upgraded. State of Law coalition MP Alia Nasseef accused the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of being embroiled in trading oil with ISIS. “What is happening shows the extent of the massive conspiracy against Iraq by Kurdish politicians . . . The [illegal] sale of Iraqi oil to ISIS or anyone else is something that would not surprise us.” Nasseef stressed the importance of “tracking down these unconstitutional activities and raising complaints about nations which participate with them, whether they are the Kurds or ISIS fighters, especially since the oil is being used for terrorist activities, as happened in Syria when they [ISIS] took over some oilfields there.”

Asharq Al-Awsat, August 21, 2014:

http://www.aawsat.net/2014/08/article55335732

– “Iraq has warned buyers of crude oil that any unauthorized oil purchases made from its territory could be used to fund activities by the extremist militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).”… “Speaking on condition of anonymity, an informed source told Asharq Al-Awsat that ISIS was indeed selling Iraqi crude from captured refineries and oilfields. He said the crude was being sold to Kurdish traders in the border regions straddling Iraq, Iran and Syria, and was being shipped to Pakistan where it was being sold “for less than half its original price.” He added that many oilfields and refineries in the country remained outside government control. The accusations of a Kurdish role in the export of oil lifted by ISIS comes amid a long-running dispute between Baghdad and the government of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region in Erbil.”… “Throughout the recent crisis, Iraqi Kurdistan has continued to export oil. A number of tankers loaded with Kurdish oil have been shipping to European countries in recent weeks, and Turkish officials told Reuters on Thursday the pipeline from Kurdistan to Turkey was up and running again after being upgraded.”

CNN, August 22, 2014:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/

– “A month ago, the ISIS–controlled oil market in Iraq was reported to be worth $1 million a day. Now, with expansion, further control of oil fields and smuggling routes, the market is believed to be raising at least $2 million a day. This could fetch them more than $730 million a year, enough to sustain the operation beyond Iraq.”

The Telegraph, August 25, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/bill-gardner/11054488/Foley-murder-video-may-have-been-staged.html

– “The video of James Foley’s execution may have been staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera, it has emerged. Forensic analysis of the footage of the journalist’s death has suggested that the British jihadist in the film may have been the frontman rather than the killer.”

The Times (UK News), August 25, 2014:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4186089.ece

– “The video of a British jihadist beheading an American hostage was probably staged, with the actual murder taking place off-camera, according to forensic analysis.”

USA Today, August 27, 2014:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/26/american-surveillance-flights-syria/14607355/

– “U.S. surveillance flights over Syria have started with President Obama’s go-ahead, a step that will provide potential targets if airstrikes against Islamic State militants are approved.”

Yahoo, August 29, 2014:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-says-no-specific-threat-u-homeland-islamic-165127981.html#

– “The United States is not aware of any specific threat to the U.S. homeland from Islamic State militants, the Department of Homeland Security said on Friday after Britain raised its international terrorism threat level.”

CBC News, August 29, 2014: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syrian-refugees-top-3-million-un-says-1.2750154

– “Three million Syrian refugees will have registered in neighbouring countries as of Friday, an exodus that began in March 2011 and shows no sign of abating, the United Nations said. The record figure is one million refugees more than a year ago, while a further 6.5 million are displaced within Syria, meaning that “almost half of all Syrians have now been forced to abandon their homes and flee for their lives,” it said.”

Brookings Institute, September/October 2014 Issue: http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/09/02-army-defeat-assad-syria-pollack

– “The cons begin with the simple fact that the United States has no interests in Syria itself. Syria is not an oil producer, a major U.S. trade partner, or even a democracy.”… “But there is, in fact, a way that the United States could get what it wants in Syria — and, ultimately, in Iraq as well — without sending in U.S. forces: by building a new Syrian opposition army capable of defeating both President Bashar al-Assad and the more militant Islamists. The United States has pulled off similar operations before and could probably do so again, and at far lower cost than what it has spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.”… “Second, any proposal must provide for the defeat of both the Assad regime and the most radical Islamist militants, since both threaten U.S. interests.”… “Recruiting Syrian army personnel would be the first task.

These men and women could come from any part of the country or its diaspora, as long as they were Syrian and willing to fight in the new army. They would need to integrate themselves into a conventional military structure and adopt its doctrine and rules of conduct. They would also have to be willing to leave their existing militias and become reassigned to new units without regard for religion, ethnicity, or geographic origin. Loyalty to the new army and to the vision of a democratic postwar Syria for which it would stand must supersede all other competing identities. The strategy’s most critical aspect would be its emphasis on long-term conventional training. The program would represent a major departure from the assistance Washington is currently providing the opposition, which involves a few weeks of coaching in weapons handling and small-unit tactics.

The new regimen, by contrast, should last at least a year, beginning with such basic training and then progressing to logistics, medical support, and specialized military skills.”… “Because the existing Syrian opposition is hobbled by extremism and a lack of professionalism, vetting all new personnel would be crucial. History shows that the only effective way to do this is for the U.S. advisers to work with the recruits on a daily basis. That would allow the advisers to gradually weed out the inevitable bad seeds — radicals, regime agents, thugs, and felons — and promote the good ones. Since training the first cadre of fighters (a task that the CIA would likely handle) would require security and freedom from distraction, it would be best to start it outside Syria. Possible training sites could include Jordan, where the United States is already providing some aid to the rebels, and Turkey. Both countries have strongly lobbied Washington to widen its support for the Syrian opposition.

Yet both would probably demand compensation for hosting big new base camps. Jordan already receives about $660 million in U.S. aid per year, and in February 2014, the White House pledged an additional $1 billion in loan guarantees to help the country with its refugee burden. Washington could offer to continue such aid in return for cooperation with its new strategy.”…

“This new Syrian army would eventually move into Syria, but only once it was strong enough to conquer and hold territory. For that, it would need to reach a critical threshold of both quantity and quality.”… “Adding these sums together yields a total operating budget of $3 billion annually for two or three years at the lower end of the price scale. If an air campaign on the scale of that in Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Libya were required, the annual price would rise to roughly $9–$10 billion for as long as the fighting continued. And if the United States were forced to provide twice as much air power as it did in those earlier wars, the cost could reach $18–$22 billion per year. Following a political settlement, Washington’s continued support for the new government would probably require $1–$5 billion in civilian and security assistance annually for up to a decade. By comparison, Afghanistan cost the United States roughly $45 billion a year from 2001 to 2013, and Iraq, about $100 billion a year from 2003 to 2011.”

Morocco World News, September 5, 2014:

http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2014/09/138139/saudi-scholar-claims-that-isis-is-backed-by-western-intelligence/

– “In an interview with Television channel Rotana Khalijia, Al-Ghaith who is a member of the consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, an advisory body whose 150 members are appointed by the Saudi Monarch, accused the intelligence agencies of key regional players, including Iran and Iraq in addition to the American intelligence of funding and arming ISIS.”

Arutz Sheva, September 7, 2014:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184823#.VdyAwJfnhqx

– “The Ambassador for the European Union (EU) in Iraq, Jana Hybaskova, admitted last week that several EU member states have bought oil from the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist organization that has been brutally conquering large portions of Iraq and Syria.”… “In addition to its implementation of brutal Islamic law, including numerous public executions, IS in late June captured Iraq’s largest oil refinery factory, days later in early July capturing the largest oil field in Syria, and another Syrian oil field a few days after that.”

New York Times, September 7, 2014:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/world/middleeast/destroying-isis-may-take-3-years-white-house-says.html?_r=0&assetType=nyt_now

– “The Obama administration is preparing to carry out a campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria that may take three years to complete, requiring a sustained effort that could last until after President Obama has left office, according to senior administration officials.”

The Daily Star, September 8, 2014:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Sep-08/269883-frustration-drives-arsals-fsa-into-isis-ranks.ashx#axzz3J0w651YT – “Frustration drives Arsal’s FSA into ISIS ranks”

CNN, September 10, 2014:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/

– “It’s time to go after ISIS in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama said Wednesday night in a nationally televised address intended to sell stepped-up military efforts to a war-weary public. Announcing a broad campaign against the Sunni jihadists who have rampaged from Syria across northern Iraq, Obama announced an escalated U.S. military role as part of a strategy that includes building an international coalition to support Iraqi ground forces and perhaps troops from other allies.”… “The Saudis made very clear that they support this mission, they will join us in this mission,” a senior administration official said. “We are joined by very important Arab partners as well.”

The Guardian, September 10, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/obama-isis-syria-air-strikes-legal-argument

– “Obama’s legal arguments for unilaterally expanding a war expected to last years have shocked even his supporters. Ahead of Wednesday’s speech the White House signaled that Obama already “has the authority he needs to take action” against Isis without congressional approval. Obama said he would welcome congressional support but framed it as optional, save for the authorisations and the $500m he wants to use the US military to train Syrian rebels. Bipartisan congressional leaders who met with Obama at the White House on Tuesday expressed no outrage.”… “Some of Obama’s legislative brushoffs are straightforward. The administration did not seek legislative authority for its 2011 Libya air war, something Congress was unlikely to grant. Scepticism also mounted in Congress last year when Obama proposed attacking Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Secretary of state John Kerry told the Huffington Post that Obama could bomb Assad even if Congress voted against it.”

The Times of Israel, September 11, 2014:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-were-playing-our-part-in-fighting-global-terrorism/

– “Israel is doing its part in confronting worldwide jihadist terrorism, though not all of its efforts are known to the public, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday, expressing Jerusalem’s full support for the American-led offensive against the Islamic State organization unveiled Wednesday.”… “The greatest threat to world peace, Netanyahu said, would be a nuclear-equipped Iran. “You would see things you never imagined could be possible,” he said, describing a scenario in which the regime succeeded in obtaining nuclear weapons. “Horrors you couldn’t even contemplate come to fruition. The ultimate terror. A terrorist regime with the weapons of the greatest terror of them all. We must not let that happen.”

International Business Times, September 14, 2014:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-senator-us-turned-blind-eye-saudi-role-9-11-fuelling-rise-isis-1465392

– “The rise of Isis has been aided by the failure of the US government to investigate the connection between the Saudi Arabian government and jihadist networks, said former senator Bob Graham, co-chairman of the official inquiry into 9/11.”… “The 9/11 inquiry found that al-Qaida relied heavily on Saudi charities and private donors.”

The Nation, September 16, 2014:

http://www.thenation.com/article/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits/

– “If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as IS, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region. They will say that our government should deploy, as retired General Anthony Zinni demanded, up to 10,000 American boots on the ground to battle IS. Or as in retired General Jack Keane’s case, they will make more vague demands, such as for “offensive” air strikes and the deployment of more military advisers to the region. But what you won’t learn from media coverage of IS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world.”… “Keane is a great example of this phenomenon.

His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol”… “Left unsaid during his media appearances (and left unmentioned on his congressional witness disclosure form) are Keane’s other gigs: as special adviser to Academi, the contractor formerly known as Blackwater; as a board member to tank and aircraft manufacturer General Dynamics; a “venture partner” to SCP Partners, an investment firm that partners with defense contractors, including XVionics, an “operations management decision support system” company used in Air Force drone training; and as president of his own consulting firm, GSI LLC.”… “In a Washington Post story about Obama’s decision not to deploy troops to combat IS, retired Marine General James Mattis was quoted as a skeptic. “The American people will once again see us in a war that doesn’t seem to be making progress,” Mattis told the paper. Left unmentioned was Mattis’s new role as Keane’s colleague on the General Dynamics corporate board, a role that afforded Mattis $88,479 in cash and stock options in 2013. Retired General Anthony Zinni, perhaps the loudest advocate of a large deployment of American soliders into the region to fight IS, is a board member to BAE Systems’ US subsidiary, and also works for several military-focused private equity firms.”… “CNN pundit Frances Townsend, a former Bush administration official, has recently appeared on television calling for more military engagement against IS. As the Public Accountability Initiative, a nonprofit that studies elite power structures, reported, Townsend “holds positions in two investment firms with defense company holdings, MacAndrews & Forbes and Monument Capital Group, and serves as an advisor to defense contractor Decision Sciences.”…

”When the Pentagon sent a recent $2 billion request for ramped-up operations in the Middle East, supposedly to confront the IS issue, budget details obtained by Bloomberg News revealed that officials asked for money for additional F-35 planes. The F-35 is not in operation and would not be used against IS. The plane is notoriously over budget and perpetually delayed—some experts call it the most expensive weapon system in human history—with a price tag now projected to be over $1 trillion.”

Today’s Zaman, September 17, 2014:

http://www.todayszaman.com/national_nurse-says-shes-tired-of-treating-isil-terrorists_358992.html

– “A nurse who works at a private hospital in Mersin, a city and province on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, has told Turkish authorities and Parliament that she is sick and tired of treating members of the terrorist organization the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which now calls itself the “Islamic State.”

The Hill, September 23, 2014:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/218656-pentagon-isis-campaign-could-last-years

– “Pentagon officials on Tuesday described airstrikes in Syria against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as successful, but cautioned that they were just the beginning phase of a campaign that could last years.”… “There were three waves of attacks in Syria, carried out by the U.S. and Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, with Qatar in a supporting role.”

The Intercept, September 23, 2014:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/

– “The U.S. today began bombing targets inside Syria, in concert with its lovely and inspiring group of five allied regimes: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan. That means that Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama—after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Iraq.”

Salon, September 24, 2014:

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/heres_who_profits_from_our_new_war_inside_nsa_and_an_army_of_private_contractors_plans/

– “A massive, $7.2 billion Army intelligence contract signed just 10 days ago underscores the central role to be played by the National Security Agency and its army of private contractors in the unfolding air war being carried out by the United States and its Gulf States allies against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. That war was greatly expanded Monday night when U.S. forces launched a “mix of fighter, bomber, remotely-piloted aircraft and Tomahawk” cruise missiles against ISIS targets in Syria. The Central Command said the strikes were led by the United States with support from Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.”… “Under its terms, 21 companies, led by Booz Allen Hamilton, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, will compete over the next five years to provide “fully integrated intelligence, security and information operations” in Afghanistan and “future contingency operations” around the world.”

Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2014:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/deal-with-saudis-paved-way-for-syrian-airstrikes-1411605329

– “The Americans knew a lot was riding on a Sept. 11 meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia at his summer palace on the Red Sea. A year earlier, King Abdullah had fumed when President Barack Obama called off strikes against the regime of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. This time, the U.S. needed the king’s commitment to support a different Syrian mission—against the extremist group Islamic State—knowing there was little hope of assembling an Arab front without it. At the palace, Secretary of State John Kerry requested assistance up to and including air strikes, according to U.S. and Gulf officials.

“We will provide any support you need,” the king said.”… “After Islamic State made startling gains in Iraq, Saudi officials told Mr. Kerry in June that Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite with close ties to Iran, needed to go, according to U.S officials. Once that happened, Riyadh would step up its role against Islamic State and work to bring other Gulf states onboard. The Obama administration had come to a similar conclusion and started to maneuver Mr. al-Maliki out of office.”… “In the last week of August, a U.S. military and State Department delegation flew to Riyadh to lay the ground for a military program to train the moderate Syrian opposition to fight both the Assad regime and Islamic State—something the Saudis have long requested. The U.S. team wanted permission to use Saudi facilities for the training. Top Saudi ministers, after consulting overnight with the king, agreed and offered to foot much of the bill. Mr. Jubeir went to Capitol Hill to pressed key lawmakers to approve legislation authorizing the training.”

Bloomberg, September 25, 2014:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-25/syria-to-ukraine-wars-send-u-s-defense-stocks-to-records

– “Led by Lockheed Martin Corp., the biggest U.S. defense companies are trading at record prices as shareholders reap rewards from escalating military conflicts around the world. Investors see rising sales for makers of missiles, drones and other weapons as the U.S. hits Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq, said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Chicago-based BMO Private Bank. President Barack Obama approved open-ended airstrikes this month while ruling out ground combat.”… “Lockheed, the world’s biggest defense company, reached an all-time high of $180.74 on Sept. 19, when Northrop, Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics Corp. also set records. That quartet and Chicago-based Boeing accounted for about $105 billion in federal contract orders last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government.”

The Hill, September 26, 2014:

http://thehill.com/policy/international/219017-state-department-assad-must-go-for-isis-to-be-defeated

– “State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Friday that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) cannot be defeated as long as Syrian President Bashar Assad remains in power.”

The Daily Mail, September 26, 2014:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770833/Alliance-hell-Al-Nusra-fighters-Syria-want-merge-ISIS-creating-united-army-fanatics.html

– “Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria is facing mounting pressure from its members to form an ultra-alliance with the rival Islamic State to confront a common enemy after U.S.-led air strikes hit both groups this week.”… “The two share the same ideology and rigid Islamic beliefs, but fell out during a power struggle that pitted Islamic State head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi against Al Qaeda chief Ayman Zawahri and Al Nusra Front leader Abu Mohammad al-Golani. But merging would require pledging loyalty to Islamic State, which has declared a caliphate in territory it controls in Iraq and Syria, which would effectively put an end to the Al Nusra Front, fighters in the group say.”

ABC News (Australian), September 28, 2014:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-29/us-led-air-strikes-on-is-oil-refineries-not-a-real-target/5774992-

“Air strikes believed to have been carried out by US-led forces have hit three makeshift oil refineries in Syria’s Raqqa province as part of an assault to weaken Islamic State (IS) militants, a monitoring group said.”… “These so-called refineries are not a real target and they do not weaken the Islamic State as they do not have any financial value for them,” Rami Abdelrahman of the Observatory told Reuters. “They are composed of trucks with equipment to separate diesel and petrol used by civilians.”

NBC News, October 1, 2014: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/cost-u-s-campaign-against-isis-roughly-1-billion-n215126

– “The cost of the American military campaign against ISIS likely has passed $1 billion. The Pentagon estimated that the U.S. air operation cost $7.5 million per day when surveillance flights began over Iraq on June 16. That estimate increased to $10 million when bombing began Aug. 8. That alone would put the estimated cost at $937 million. On the first night of the strikes in Syria, the United States also fired 47 Tomahawk missiles, which cost more than $1 million each, higher for more advanced models.

Dallas Morning News, October 5, 2014:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20141005-u.s.-helicopters-join-fight-against-islamic-state-in-iraq.ece

– “The United States sent helicopters into combat against Islamic State targets west of Baghdad”

New York Times, October 5, 2014:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/world/isis-ammunition-is-shown-to-have-origins-in-us-and-china.html?_r=0

– “In its campaign across northern Syria and Iraq, the jihadist group Islamic State has been using ammunition from the United States and other countries that have been supporting the regional security forces fighting the group”…

Washington Post, October 21, 2014:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/21/u-s-accidentally-delivered-weapons-to-the-islamic-state-by-airdrop-militants-allege/

– “The Islamic State has released a new video in which it brags that it recovered weapons and supplies that the U.S. military intended to deliver to Kurdish fighters, who are locked in a fight with the militants over control of the Syrian border town of Kobane.”

BBC News, October 22, 2014:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29715044

– “But a video uploaded to the internet by a media group loyal to IS showed a cache of weapons, apparently dropped by the US, in militant hands. Activists from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also said militants had seized one cache.”

NBC News, October 22, 2014:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-weapons-airdropped-kurds-ended-isiss-hands-pentagon-n231671

– “A pallet of weapons meant for Kurdish fighters, airdropped by the U.S. over Syria this week, landed instead in the hands of ISIS militants, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. And a second delivery that went astray was purposely destroyed by U.S. combat aircraft as a precautionary measure, the officials said.”

The Independent, October 23, 2014:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-on-isis-us-planning-to-bomb-oil-pipelines-to-halt-jihadists-funding-9813980.html

– “The US is considering bombing pipelines in Syria in an attempt to cut off the huge profits being made by Isis from captured oilfields, a senior Obama administration official disclosed today.”

The Telegraph, October 23, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11182490/US-considers-air-strikes-against-Isil-oil-pipelines.html

– “America is considering whether to bomb Isil’s oil pipelines in Syria and choke one of the movement’s biggest sources of revenue, a senior US official said on Thursday. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) is believed to raise about $1m (£600,000) a day from oilfields under its control in the deserts of eastern Syria. Oil wells in the Jafra field have already been destroyed by air strikes, but the US is now weighing whether to expand its target list to include pipelines.”

The Telegraph, November 2, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html

– “Two of the main rebel groups receiving weapons from the United States to fight both the regime and jihadist groups in Syria have surrendered to al-Qaeda.”

Washington Post, November 2, 2014: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-backed-syria-rebels-routed-by-fighters-linked-to-al-qaeda/2014/11/02/7a8b1351-8fb7-4f7e-a477-66ec0a0aaf34_story.html

– “The Obama administration’s Syria strategy suffered a major setback Sunday after fighters linked to al-Qaeda routed U.S.-backed rebels from their main northern strongholds, capturing significant quantities of weaponry, triggering widespread defections and ending hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.”…” Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts.”

Brookings Institute, November 7, 2014:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/07-big-questions-islamic-state-threat-hein

– “Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future.”… “There is a parallel here between the war on Islamic extremists and the war on drugs: the absolute end-states for both may be unachievable, but that in no way diminishes the need to execute counter operations. Some wars cannot be won but still must be fought. There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.”

The Washington Post, November 7, 2014:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-more-than-doubles-number-of-troops-authorized-for-iraq/2014/11/07/846e0442-66bb-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html

– “President Obama authorized Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Friday to send up to 1,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, roughly doubling the force the United States has built up since June to fight the Islamic State militants who control much of Iraq and Syria.”

The Guardian, November 9, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/09/us-iran-russia-oil-prices-shale

– “That, though, is not the whole story. The fourfold increase in oil prices triggered by the embargo on exports organised by Saudi Arabia in response to the Yom Kippur war in 1973 showed how crude could be used as a diplomatic and economic weapon. History is repeating itself.”… “Instead, with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.”

The Telegraph, November 11, 2014:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11224488/Fears-that-US-weapons-will-fall-into-al-Qaedas-hands-as-Syrian-rebels-defect.html

– “Western-backed “moderate” rebels fighting jihadists in Syria are refusing to do battle, giving up and even defecting for lack of weapons and other promised support, leaders have told The Telegraph.”… “What support there is, is kept on a short leash from two operations rooms, one in Turkey, and one in Jordan. The operations rooms include representatives from the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey.”

DW News, November 11, 2014:

http://www.dw.com/en/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048

– “Every day, trucks laden with food, clothing, and other supplies cross the border from Turkey to Syria. It is unclear who is picking up the goods. The haulers believe most of the cargo is going to the “Islamic State” militia.”

Washington Post, December 1, 2014:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/lack-of-funds-at-world-food-program-leaves-17-million-syrians-without-critical-aid/2014/12/01/1ebb8b1a-834e-4e5a-840a-329cccbf282f_story.html

– “A funding crisis has forced the World Food Program to suspend assistance to 1.7 million Syrian refugees, the U.N. agency announced Monday, warning that “many families will go hungry” without the aid.”… “The flow of an estimated 3.3 million Syrians from the conflict in their country has badly strained neighboring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan.”

Haaretz, December 7, 2014:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.630359

– “Reports by UN observers in the Golan Heights over the past 18 months reveal the type and extent of cooperation between Israel and Syrian opposition figures. The reports, submitted to the 15 members of the UN Security Council and available on the UN’s website, detail regular contacts held on the border between IDF officers and soldiers and Syrian rebels.”

The Guardian, December 7, 2014:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/07/israeli-jets-bomb-syria-says-damascus –

“Syria accused Israeli jets of bombing two installations inside the country on Sunday, one near the capital, Damascus, and the second in a town near the Lebanese border.”… “Israel has carried out several air strikes in Syria since the revolt against Bashar al-Assad began in March 2011. Binyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened to take military action to prevent Syria from transferring sophisticated weapons to its ally Hezbollah. In June, Israel struck targets inside Syria, including a military installation, following a cross-border attack that killed an Israeli teenager. Israel said at the time that it had struck nine military targets inside its northern neighbour and had confirmed “direct hits”.”

International Business Times, December 7, 2014:

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/un-report-israel-regular-contact-syrian-rebels-including-isis-616404

– “A report submitted to the United Nations Security Council by UN observers in the Golan Heights over the past 18 months shows that Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have been in regular contact with Syrian rebels, including Islamic State (ISIS) militants. Citing the UN report, Haaretz noted that there have been several instances detailed in the report that shows close ties between Syrian armed rebels and Israeli army.”… As per the details released by the Israel’s health ministry, so far some 1,000 Syrians have been treated in four Israeli hospitals. Besides the civilians, some are members of the secular Free Syrian Army rebel group. Israel initially had maintained that it was treating only civilians. However, reports claimed that earlier last month members of Israel’s Druze minority protested the hospitalisation of wounded Syrian fighters from the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front in Israel.”… “Replying to a question by i24News on whether Israel has given medical assistance to members of al-Nusra and Daesh (the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State (ISIS), a Israeli military spokesman’s office said: “In the past two years the Israel Defence Forces have been engaged in humanitarian, life-saving aid to wounded Syrians, irrespective of their identity.”

Oilprice, December 23, 2014:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Did-The-Saudis-And-The-US-Collude-In-Dropping-Oil-Prices.html

– “The oil price drop that has dominated the headlines in recent weeks has been framed almost exclusively in terms of oil market economics, with most media outlets blaming Saudi Arabia, through its OPEC Trojan horse, for driving down the price, thus causing serious damage to the world’s major oil exporters – most notably Russia. While the market explanation is partially true, it is simplistic, and fails to address key geopolitical pressure points in the Middle East.”… “What is the reason for the United States and some U.S. allies wanting to drive down the price of oil?” Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro asked rhetorically in October. “To harm Russia.”… “Proponents of this theory point to a Sept. 11 meeting between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi King Abdullah at his palace on the Red Sea. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, it was during that meeting that a deal was hammered out between Kerry and Abdullah. In it, the Saudis would support Syrian airstrikes against Islamic State (ISIS), in exchange for Washington backing the Saudis in toppling Assad.”…

“Some commentators have offered a more conspiratorial theory for the Saudis wanting to get rid of Assad. They point to a 2011 agreement between Syria, Iran and Iraq that would see a pipeline running from the Iranian Port Assalouyeh to Damascus via Iraq. The $10-billion project would take three years to complete and would be fed gas from the South Pars gas field, which Iran shares with Qatar. Iranian officials have said they plan to extend the pipeline to the Mediterranean to supply gas to Europe – in competition with Qatar, the world’s largest LNG exporter. “The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – if it’s ever built – would solidify a predominantly Shi’ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord,” wrote Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar.”… “How does Russia play into the oil price drop? As a key ally of Syria, supplying Assad with billions in weaponry, President Vladimir Putin has, along with Iran, found himself targeted by the House of Saud.”

Middle East Eye, January 1, 2015:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/us-army-report-calls-military-support-israeli-energy-grab-57185571

– “A new report by the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute emphasises the need for “US security and military support” to its key allies in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly Israel, over access to recent vast discoveries of regional oil and gas. The Army study, released earlier in December 2014, concludes that extensive US military involvement “may prove essential in managing possible future conflict” in case of “an eruption of natural resource conflict in the East Mediterranean,” due to huge gas discoveries in recent years.”…

Al-Jazeera, January 8, 2015:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2015/01/us-coalition-drops-nearly-5000-bombs-isil-20151894916660171.html

– “US-led aircraft have dropped nearly 5,000 bombs against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) targets in Iraq and Syria, as Washington said it was reviewing several incidents in which civilians may have been killed.”

The Daily Beast, January 15, 2015:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/exclusive-isis-gaining-ground-in-syria-despite-u-s-strikes.html

– “ISIS continues to gain substantial ground in Syria, despite nearly 800 airstrikes in the American-led campaign to break its grip there. At least one-third of the country’s territory is now under ISIS influence, with recent gains in rural areas that can serve as a conduit to major cities that the so-called Islamic State hopes to eventually claim as part of its caliphate.”

CBS News, January 16, 2015:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-to-send-400-troops-to-train-syrian-rebels/?google_editors_picks=true

– “The United States will send more than 400 troops to train moderate Syrian rebels this spring along with hundreds of support personnel.” …”The law authorized the training and equipping of moderate Syrian rebels battling the extremists for two years, and provided $5 billion to train Iraqis battling the militants who brutally rule large sections of the two countries.”…” Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have offered to host the training, Reuters points out.”

RT, January 17, 2015:

http://www.rt.com/usa/223559-us-troops-syria-training/

– “The Pentagon announced that a mission to train the “moderate” Syrian opposition may involve over 1,000 US troops. The first soldiers may flow into the region in a month, while the trained fighters may return to Syria to “fight ISIS” by the end of 2015. The earlier announced number suggested 400 pairs of US boots on the ground in countries neighboring Syria, where the training will take place. However, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters in a press briefing on Friday that the total number “could approach 1,000.”… “The troops, ranging from special operations to conventional forces, will be based in at least three different training sites – in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey”…. “The $500 million training plan for Syrian insurgents was first proposed by the Pentagon in June last year. Congress first approved the measure in September for three months, and last month has extended the program through 2016.”

The Express Tribune, January 28, 2015:

http://tribune.com.pk/story/828761/startling-revelations-is-operative-confesses-to-getting-funds-via-us/

– “Yousaf al Salafi – allegedly the Pakistan commander of Islamic State (IS) or Daish – has confessed during investigations that he has been receiving funds through the United States.”… “Sources said al Salafi’s revelations were shared with the US Secretary of State John Kerry during his recent visit to Islamabad. “The matter was also taken up with CENTCOM chief General Lloyd Austin during his visit to Islamabad earlier this month,” a source said.” Al Salafi also confessed that he – along with a Pakistani accomplice, reportedly imam of a mosque – was recruiting people to send them to Syria and was getting around $600 per person from Syria.”

The Independent, January 28, 2015:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/intervention-in-civil-wars-far-more-likely-in-oilrich-nations-10006648.html

– “According to academics from the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex, foreign intervention in a civil war is 100 times more likely when the afflicted country has high oil reserves than if it has none. The research is the first to confirm the role of oil as a dominant motivating factor in conflict, suggesting hydrocarbons were a major reason for the military intervention in Libya, by a coalition which included the UK, and the current US campaign against Isis in northern Iraq.”

Middle East Eye, January 28, 2015:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how-islamist-rebels-engineered-israel-s-oil-grab-syria-740568063

– “A US oil company is preparing to drill for oil in the Golan Heights. Granted the license in February 2013 by Israel, Afek Oil and Gas is a subsidiary of Genie Energy Ltd, whose equity-holding board members include former US Vice President Dick Cheney, controversial media mogul Rupert Murdoch and financier Lord Jacob Rothschild. Also on the board is Brigadier General Effie Eitam, a former Israeli minister for infrastructure who currently resides in the Golan Heights himself.”… The role of a prominent US energy company in the Golan Heights demonstrates that the Netanyahu administration has Obama’s unwavering backing in its effort to expand Israel’s energy footprint into Syria. Yet there is considerable evidence that the burgeoning threat from Islamist militants in the Golan Heights is a direct consequence of Israel’s covert sponsorship of anti-Assad rebels in the region.

Last year, reports submitted by UN observers in the Golan Heights to the UN Security Council revealed a disturbing pattern of “cooperation between Israel and Syrian opposition figures” over a period of 18 months. The extensive reports confirmed that the Israeli army was assisting wounded Syrian rebels, and providing military assistance, from around March 2013 to summer 2014.”… “The UN observer reports also revealed that the Israeli army was allowing Syrian rebels inside Israel. Last December, on his widely-read blog Tikun Olam, Israeli national security journalist Richard Silverstein cited Hebrew news reports showing that the Israeli army had established “a Camp Ashraf-style Syrian rebel encampment just inside Israeli territory on the border.”

New York Times, February 3, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-is-said-to-use-oil-to-lure-russia-away-from-syrias-assad.html?_r=0

– “Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices.”

CNN Money, February 11, 2015:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/11/news/economy/oil-price-fall-saudi-arabia/

– “Richard Fisher, the head of the Dallas Federal Reserve, said “the Saudis have engineered” the oil crisis. He was speaking Wednesday at the Economic Club of New York.”… “Fisher also noted that the Saudis benefit not just economically, but politically from the oil price decline. Low oil prices especially hurt their biggest regional rival: Iran. “I’m sure King Abdullah thought to himself, ‘I’ve also done a favor vis-a-vis Iran,'” Fisher told reporters. Iran’s economy needs oil to trade around $135. Saudi has far larger cash reserves and is thus able to withstand a downturn in prices for much longer.”

Foreign Policy, February 14, 2015:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/24/syrias-christians-fight-back-assyrian-militias/

– “In northern Syria, a small band of Assyrian Christians are defending their people — and their religious identity — from the Islamic State and Assad alike.”

The Telegraph, February 17, 2015:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11419243/Moderate-Syrian-rebels-to-be-given-power-to-call-in-US-air-strikes.html

– “The US and Turkey have reached a tentative deal to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels, according to officials from both countries, amid reports that commanders will be given authority to call in air strikes.”… “At the same time The Wall Street Journal reported that some rebels will be equipped with pick-up trucks modified with mounted machine guns as well as radios for calling in US airstrikes – an approach modelled on that used to successful effect by Kurdish forces in Kobane last month.”

The Independent, February 17, 2015:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/sudans-president-claims-cia-and-mossad-stand-behind-isis-and-boko-haram-10051024.html

– “Sudan’s President has claimed the CIA, America’s intelligence agency, and Israel’s Mossad are behind the Islamist militant groups Boko Haram and Isis.”

International Business Times, February 22, 2015: http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-beheading-video-21-egyptian-christians-fake-film-experts-argue-yes-1824034 –

“The Islamic State group video of the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by a Libyan beach that was released Feb. 15 sickened and outraged the world. It even prompted Egyptian airstrikes in retaliation near the eastern port city of Tripoli, where it looked like the video had been shot. But some experts — including Veryan Khan, executive director of the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium in Florida, and Mary Lambert, a horror filmmaker who directed “Pet Sematery” — told FoxNews.com that much of the video appears to have been manipulated.”

The Times of Israel, February 25, 2015:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/saudis-said-to-mull-air-passage-for-israeli-jets-to-attack-iran/

– “Saudi Arabia is prepared to let Israeli fighter jets use its airspace if it proves necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear program, an Israeli TV station reported Tuesday, highlighting growing ties in the shadow of Tehran’s nuclear drive.”… “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” the European official in Brussels said.”

The Telegraph, February 28, 2015:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11442355/How-Syrias-Christians-stopped-turning-the-other-cheek.html

– “For the last week, they have been fighting the jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant across a major front in north-west Syria, in alliance with the YPG, the Kurdish defence forces. They have had mixed fortunes, but the battle has energised Middle East Christians worldwide – many of them exiles who fled the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq.”… “In 2003, the Christian population of Iraq was well over one million. Now it is less than half that. In June last year, more than 600,000 were driven out of their homes when Isil swept across the Nineveh plain, traditional homeland of Assyrian Christians, in northern Iraq last summer.”

Reuters, March 4, 2015:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/04/uk-mideast-crisis-nusra-insight-idUKKBN0M00G620150304

– “Leaders of Syria’s Nusra Front are considering cutting their links with al Qaeda to form a new entity backed by some Gulf states trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad, sources said. Sources within and close to Nusra said that Qatar, which enjoys good relations with the group, is encouraging the group to go ahead with the move, which would give Nusra a boost in funding.”… “The Nusra Front is listed as a terrorist group by the United States and has been sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. But for Qatar at least, rebranding Nusra would remove legal obstacles to supporting it.”… “But if Nusra is dissolved and it abandons al Qaeda, the ideology of the new entity is not expected to change. Golani fought with al Qaeda in Iraq. Some other leaders fought in Afghanistan and are close al Qaeda chief Ayman Zawahri.”

BBC News, March 6, 2015:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31764114

– “Being a directly affiliated al-Qaeda group, the Nusra Front is nearer the IS end of the spectrum. Yet, while the Qatari relationship with the Nusra Front appears to be far from straightforward with some of the state’s initiatives failing, indicating some distance between the two, according to recent reports, Qatar appears to want to reform this relationship. This begs the question of why Qatar would want even loosely to associate itself with a group like the Nusra Front.”… “Secondly, the Nusra Front has pledged to concentrate its efforts on removing the Bashar al-Assad government, as opposed to attacking the “far enemy” (ie Western states).”… “This is why Qatar is hoping to bring the Nusra Front in from the cold.

If the state can get the group to eschew its al-Qaeda affiliation and adhere to a broadly moderate Islamist platform, Qatar can officially commence, with Western blessing, the supply of one of the most effective fighting forces in Syria.”… “But the fact remains that Qatar is a key Western ally. It hosts a critical US military base, it grafted US and UK higher-education institutions and ideas onto its education system, and has long promoted the Middle East’s most visible and powerful woman, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Missned, the Emir’s mother. These are transparently not the policies of a state with sympathies for the likes of IS or al-Qaeda. Indeed, there is no chance that Qatar is doing this alone: the US and UK governments will certainly be involved in or at least apprised of Qatar’s plans.”

Foreign Affairs (CFR), March 9, 2015:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-03-09/accepting-al-qaeda

– “Since 9/11, Washington has considered al Qaeda the greatest threat to the United States, one that must be eliminated regardless of cost or time. After Washington killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, it made Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s new leader, its next number one target. But the instability in the Middle East following the Arab revolutions and the meteoric rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) require that Washington rethink its policy toward al Qaeda, particularly its targeting of Zawahiri. Destabilizing al Qaeda at this time may in fact work against U.S. efforts to defeat ISIS.”… “It is certainly ironic that at this point, when the United States is the closest it has ever been to destroying al Qaeda, its interests would be better served by keeping the terrorist organization afloat and Zawahiri alive.”

International Business Times, March 9, 2015:

http://www.ibtimes.com/aleppo-battle-al-qaedas-jabhat-al-nusra-friend-syrian-rebel-groups-1841408

– “Though JAN is al Qaeda’s only branch in Syria, the group often downplays its role in al Qaeda Central’s long-term plan to establish an Islamic “emirate” in favor of marketing itself as a Syria-centric opposition group focused on the revolution and overthrowing Assad. Their strategy relies on their ability to work alongside opposition groups of varying degrees of extremism when fighting the Islamic State group.”…

New York Times, March 14, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?_r=0

– “They first turned to a secret fund that the Central Intelligence Agency bankrolled with monthly cash deliveries to the presidential palace in Kabul, according to several Afghan officials involved in the episode. The Afghan government, they said, had already squirreled away about $1 million from that fund. Within weeks, that money and $4 million more provided from other countries was handed over to Al Qaeda, replenishing its coffers after a relentless C.I.A. campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan had decimated the militant network’s upper ranks.”

Washington Post, March 17, 2015:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-loses-sight-of-500-million-in-counterterrorism-aid-given-to-yemen/2015/03/17/f4ca25ce-cbf9-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html

– “The Pentagon is unable to account for more than $500 million in U.S. military aid given to Yemen, amid fears that the weaponry, aircraft and equipment is at risk of being seized by Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.”

RT, March 17, 2015: http://www.rt.com/news/241573-isis-plane-drop-ammunition/

– “The Islamic State is getting outside help, with plane drops providing ammunition for the terrorist organization, according to an RT Arabic report. Iraqi government soldiers also say this is a recurring theme and the group is as strong as ever.”

New York Times, March 18, 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-day.html?_r=0

– “In 2002, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime). In 2003, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein). But because we failed to erect a self-sustaining pluralistic order, which could have been a durable counterbalance to Iran, we created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world. That is why Tehran’s proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad. ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism — mixing old pro-Saddam Baathists with medieval Sunni religious fanatics with a collection of ideologues, misfits and adventure-seekers from around the Sunni Muslim world. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?”

Al-Monitor, March 23, 2015: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/syria-christians-aleppo-regime-community-is.html#

– “Five years into the Syrian conflict, Syria’s Christians continue to fight for their existence, turning to the regime as a last resort.”

Reuters, March 31, 2015: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/31/us-mideast-crisis-training-turkey-idUSKBN0MR0YR20150331

– “A U.S.-led program to train Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State militants will start in May, Turkey’s Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz was quoted as saying by the state-run Anadolu news agency on Tuesday. U.S. officials have said they plan to train about 5,000 Syrian fighters a year for three years as part of a campaign against Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. Details on the training – due to take place in Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – have been scant, although it had previously been planned to start this month.”

Medium, March 31, 2015: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-the-pentagon-lost-track-of-45-billion-5e2cc478240

– “Since 2002, Congress has set aside $104 billion specifically to rebuild Afghanistan. Of that, $66 billion went to the Pentagon.”… “Then the watchdog asked for the records — all the records — a second time. But the Pentagon didn’t provide the information, and argued that pulling records for the unaccounted $45 billion wasn’t feasible.”

New York Times, April 18, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/middleeast/sale-of-us-arms-fuels-the-wars-of-arab-states.html?_r=0

– “To wage war in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is using F-15 fighter jets bought from Boeing. Pilots from the United Arab Emirates are flying Lockheed Martin’s F-16 to bomb both Yemen and Syria. Soon, the Emirates are expected to complete a deal with General Atomics for a fleet of Predator drones to run spying missions in their neighborhood.”… “Last week, defense industry officials told Congress that they were expecting within days a request from Arab allies fighting the Islamic State — Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Egypt — to buy thousands of American-made missiles, bombs and other weapons, replenishing an arsenal that has been depleted over the past year.”… “Saudi Arabia spent more than $80 billion on weaponry last year — the most ever, and more than either France or Britain — and has become the world’s fourth-largest defense market, according to figures released last week by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks global military spending.

The Emirates spent nearly $23 billion last year, more than three times what they spent in 2006. Qatar, another gulf country with bulging coffers and a desire to assert its influence around the Middle East, is on a shopping spree. Last year, Qatar signed an $11 billion deal with the Pentagon to purchase Apache attack helicopters and Patriot and Javelin air-defense systems. Now the tiny nation is hoping to make a large purchase of Boeing F-15 fighters to replace its aging fleet of French Mirage jets. Qatari officials are expected to present the Obama administration with a wish list of advanced weapons before they come to Washington next month for meetings with other gulf nations.

American defense firms are following the money. Boeing opened an office in Doha, Qatar, in 2011, and Lockheed Martin set up an office there this year. Lockheed created a division in 2013 devoted solely to foreign military sales, and the company’s chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, has said that Lockheed needs to increase foreign business — with a goal of global arms sales’ becoming 25 percent to 30 percent of its revenue — in part to offset the shrinking of the Pentagon budget after the post-Sept. 11 boom.”

The Intercept, May 9, 2015:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/09/military-contractors-form-group-pressure-2016-candidates-adopt-hawkish-positions

– “Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers has formed a new pressure group, now active in Iowa and New Hampshire, to serve as the “premiere national security and foreign policy organization during the 2016 debate” and to “help elect a president who supports American engagement and a strong foreign policy.” Roger’s group, Americans for Peace, Prosperity, and Security, is hosting candidate events and intends to host a candidate forum later this year. The organization does not disclose its donors. But a look at the business executives helping APPS steer presidential candidates towards more hawkish positions reveals that many are defense contractors who stand to gain financially from continued militarism”

Foreign Policy In Focus, May 13, 2015:

http://fpif.org/dcs-dictator-summit/

– “On May 13th and 14th, President Obama is hosting a billionaire conglomerate known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which consists of the Middle Eastern monarchies of Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Oman. The cozy U.S.-GCC relationship exemplifies the twisted nature of U.S. foreign policy, especially in regards to one particular monarchy: Saudi Arabia.”

National Journal, May 14, 2015:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-commits-u-s-to-defend-gulf-arab-allies-territory-20150514

– “Obama laid out five points of agreement among all the countries, top among them a commitment by the United States to respond to an “external threat” to any of the nations’ territorial integrity, which could include the use of military force, as well as the development of a ballistic-missile defense for the Gulf nations. “And let me underscore, the United States keeps our commitments,” Obama said.”

BBC News, May 15, 2015:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27801676

– “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State (IS) militant group, has been careful to reveal little about himself and his whereabouts.”… Reports suggest he was a cleric in a mosque in the city around the time of the US-led invasion in 2003. Some believe he was already a militant jihadist during the rule of Saddam Hussein. Others suggest he was radicalised during the four years he was held at Camp Bucca, a US facility in southern Iraq where many al-Qaeda commanders were detained. He emerged as the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of the groups that later became Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), in 2010, and rose to prominence during the attempted merger with al-Nusra Front in Syria”

The Daily Caller, May 28, 2015:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/us-trained-foreign-special-forces-commander-defects-to-isis/

– “US-Trained Foreign Special Forces Commander Defects To ISIS.”… He claims he received training from Russian and American special forces in Moscow and in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He also boasts about training by the U.S. private military contractor Blackwater.”

Foreign Policy, May 20, 2015:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/20/top-u-s-general-many-iraqis-believe-washington-aiding-islamic-state/?utm_content=buffera0e4a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

– “The general in charge of U.S. special operations forces in Iraq for the past six months says Washington’s information campaign in the Middle East is so inadequate that many Iraqi troops believe American forces are secretly supplying the Islamic State — potentially leaving U.S. forces vulnerable to reprisal attacks from their nominal allies in the fight against the militants.”… “As an example, he cited a narrative that had taken root in Iraq that the United States was “resupplying” the forces of the Islamic State, which has swept across northern Syria and Iraq over the past 18 months, seizing the important Iraqi city of Ramadi in Anbar province this past week. Crytzer did not specify why many Iraqis would believe that U.S. forces would support an extremist organization that has routinely conducted barbaric executions of its hostages from the United States other Western nations.”

The Intercept, May 28, 2015:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/28/called-khorasan-group-doesnt-exist/

– “In early September 2014, an Associated Press story quoted unnamed U.S. officials discussing an imminent threat from a previously unknown, Syria-based terror outfit called the “Khorasan Group.” U.S. officials told the AP that the jihadist group was stocked with al Qaeda veterans and was plotting imminent attacks against U.S.-bound airline flights. Officials also suggested that the level of danger posed by the group exceeded that of ISIS, the militant group which now controls much of Iraq and Syria.”… “Yesterday, the head of al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria gave the clearest indication yet that the group is a fabrication. In an interview conducted with Al Jazeera Arabic, Abu Muhammad al Jolani, the head of Jabhat al Nusra, said the following: “The so-called Khorasan group, supposedly active within our ranks, doesn’t exist. We first heard about it via the media after the U.S.-led coalition bombed us. It is merely a Western invention to justify the bombings on us. There are some brothers from Khorasan who joined our strife though.”

Reuters, June 2, 2015:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/02/van-buren-iraq-idUSL1N0YO25X20150602

– “Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles when Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul in June 2014, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Sunday in an interview with Iraqiya state television. Coupled with previous losses of American weapons, the conclusion is simple: The United States is effectively supplying Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons.”… “In addition, some $1.2 billion in training funds for Iraq were tucked into an omnibus spending bill that Congress passed earlier this year. This is in spite of the sad reality that from 2003 to 2011, the United States spent $25 billion training Iraqi security forces.”

The Guardian, June 3, 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

– “Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.”… “A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq.

In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria. Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.”… “That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.”

Reuters, June 22, 2015:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/22/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN0P22BX20150622

– “Syrian rebels receiving U.S. military training to battle Islamic State militants are being paid $250 to $400 per month, depending on their skills, performance and leadership position, the Pentagon said on Monday.”

Brookings Institute, June 23, 2015:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon/23syriastrategyohanlon.pdf

– “Training opposition fighters in the safety of Turkey, Jordan, and other friendly countries would still be the first step. But it  would not over time be sufficient, either, since many opposition fighters are reluctant to leave their home territories and thereby leave their families  and  communities  unprotected in  order  to  go  abroad  for  training. The idea would be to help moderate elements establish reliable safe zones within Syria once they were able. American, as well as Saudi and Turkish and British and Jordanian and other Arab forces would act in support, not only from the air but eventually on the ground via the presence of special forces as well.”… “This type of plan may be the only realistic path forward… Moreover, while it is not without risks for the United States, the scale of military involvement envisioned is not substantially greater than what we have been doing the last year or so in Afghanistan. President Obama…. should not view Syria as a problem to hand to his successor, but rather a crisis that demands his attention and a new strategy now.”

Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2015:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/to-many-iraqis-u-s-is-not-really-seeking-to-defeat-islamic-state-1435224647

– ““We all know that America is providing ISIS with weapons and food, and that it is because of American backing that they have become so strong,” added Abbas Hashem, a 50-year-old who also escaped from Ramadi and now lives in the makeshift Baghdad camp that is only occasionally supplied with water. Such conspiracy theories about America’s support for Islamic State are outlandish, no doubt. But they are so widespread that they now represent a political reality with real-world consequences—making it harder for the U.S. and allies to cobble together Iraqi forces that could regain the country’s Sunni heartland from Islamic State’s murderous rule one day.”…

“This spreading perception that the U.S. isn’t really interested in defeating Islamic State has undermined local resistance to the militant group in Anbar in recent months. It represents a major obstacle to recruiting local Sunni tribes—one of the U.S. strategies in the war—provincial leaders say.”… “We don’t have any trust in Americans anymore,” said Alia Nusseif, a prominent Shiite lawmaker from Baghdad. “We now think ISIS is being used as a tool by America to divide and weaken Iraq.”

The Times of Israel, June 29, 2015:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/

– “Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger.”… “We’ve assisted them under two conditions,” Ya’alon said of the Israeli medical aid to the Syrian rebels, some of whom are presumably fighting with al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.”

Al-Monitor, July 1, 2015:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/israel-syria-war-bashar-al-assad-support-rebels-al-qaeda-is.html#

– “In contrast, it is a dangerous, irresponsible gamble to choose Assad’s enemies and encourage his collapse — it would be playing with fire. The prominent elements among Israel’s potential future neighbors are mainly Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, or the Islamic State, whose fighters aim to advance to southern Syria but have been blocked so far.”

The Intercept, July 15, 2015:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/15/israeli-special-forces-assassinated-senior-syrian-official/

– “On Aug. 1, 2008, a small team of Israeli commandos entered the waters near Tartus, Syria, and shot and killed a Syrian general as he was holding a dinner party at his seaside weekend home. Muhammad Suleiman, a top aide to the Syrian president, was shot in the head and neck, and the Israeli military team escaped by sea. While Israel has never spoken about its involvement, secret U.S. intelligence files confirm that Israeli special operations forces assassinated the general while he vacationed at his luxury villa on the Syrian coast.”

Al-Jazeera, July 16, 2015:

http://pr.aljazeera.com/post/124230887340/drones-cause-more-damage-than-good-al-jazeera

– “President Obama’s former top military intelligence official has launched a scathing attack on the White House’s counter-terrorism strategy, including the administration’s handling of the ISIL threat in Iraq and Syria and the US military’s drone war. In a forthcoming interview with Al Jazeera English’s ‘Head to Head’, retired US Lt. General Michael Flynn, who quit as head of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in August 2014, said “there should be a different approach, absolutely” on drones. “When you drop a bomb from a drone… you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good.” Flynn was a senior intelligence officer with the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which is responsible for the US military’s secretive and controversial drone program in countries such as Yemen and Somalia. Asked by Al Jazeera English’s Mehdi Hasan if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn – who has been described by Wired magazine as “the real father of the modern JSOC” – replied: “I don’t disagree with that”, adding: “I think as an overarching strategy, it’s a failed strategy.”

The Telegraph, July 21, 2015:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11753809/British-troops-head-to-Saudi-Arabia-to-train-Syrian-rebels.html

– “British troops are being sent to Saudi Arabia to begin training Syrian rebels, as the UK widens its efforts to combat Islamic State extremists. Troops will soon be deployed to a desert base in the north of the country to teach rebel volunteers basic infantry skills as part of a US-led training programme. The mission will mean Britain is training Syrian moderate rebel fighters in four countries, including Turkey, Qatar and Jordan.”

New York Times, July 30, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/world/middleeast/us-trained-islamic-state-opponents-reported-kidnapped-in-syria.html?_r=0 –

“A Pentagon program to train moderate Syrian insurgents to fight the Islamic State has been vexed by problems of recruitment, screening, dismissals and desertions that have left only a tiny band of fighters ready to do battle. Those fighters — 54 in all — suffered perhaps their most embarrassing setback yet on Thursday. One of their leaders, a Syrian Army defector who recruited them, was abducted in Syria near the Turkish border, along with his deputy who commands the trainees. They were seized not by the Islamic State but by its rival the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda that is another Islamist extremist byproduct of the four-year-old Syrian civil war.”… “The Nusra Front dealt a more serious blow to the C.I.A. program last year, attacking and dismantling its main groups, the Syrian Revolutionaries Front and Harakat Hazm, and seizing some of their American-supplied, sophisticated antitank missiles.”

Sunday Express, August 1, 2015:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/595439/SAS-ISIS-fighter-Jihadis

– “The unorthodox tactic, which is seeing SAS units dressed in black and flying ISIS flags, has been likened to the methods used by the Long Range Desert Group against Rommel’s forces during the Second World War.”… “Last week an additional 20 SAS soldiers flew into Saudi Arabia to prepare a training system in which the UK will instruct hundreds of members of the Syrian Moderate Opposition, as part of efforts by David Cameron to seek a support by Labour and the SNP on air strikes over Syria.”

The Independent, August 4, 2015:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/usled-airstrikes-in-syria-only-two-civilian-deaths-have-been-officially-recognised–that-would-be-extraordinary-if-it-were-true-10438013.html

– “The first year of the international Coalition’s air war against Isis has already seen more than 17,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq and Syria, as part of 5,700 air strikes.”… “Yet in more than 50 cases we felt there was enough evidence – often including photographs, eyewitness testimony and the names of victims – to strongly indicate civilians had been killed by the coalition. It’s likely that between 459 and 591 non-combatants died in these attacks, including 100 children.”

Defense One, August 5, 2015:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/08/05/report-defense-firms-ramp-up-spending-lobbying/31165301/

– “The defense industry is stepping up its lobbying efforts in Washington in an attempt to get Congress to increase defense spending, according to a report published Wednesday. The top 50-plus defense contractors spent $58.5 million combined on lobbying in 2015’s second quarter, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity produced in conjunction with Time. This represented a 28 percent increase from the $45.7 million the 53 contractors spent during the same quarter in 2014.”

RT, August 5, 2015:

https://www.rt.com/usa/311601-us-defensive-airstrikes-syria/

– “The US has been carrying out airstrikes against ISIS in Syria for almost a year, and the latest decision to bomb Syrian government forces in order to “protect” US-trained “moderate rebels” does not require any additional legal justification, the State Department believes.”… “I frankly don’t know what the legal authority is,” Toner said, adding that the situation in Syria remains “complex and fluid.”

The Guardian, August 5, 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/05/us-drone-bombs-islamic-state-target-syria-turkey

– “A US armed drone has bombed a target in Islamic State-controlled northern Syria, in the first such air strike by a US aircraft after taking off from Turkish territory, a Turkish official told AFP.”… “Last month Ankara said it would allow US warplanes to launch attacks from the Incirlik airbase in southern Turkey, which is just 200 km (125 miles) from Isis positions in northern Syria.”

CBS News, August 6, 2015:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagons-early-training-of-syrian-rebels-seen-as-failure/

– “But what appeared to be a victory turned into defeat when the rest of the NSF scattered. Some were captured by al Nusra. Some made it back to Turkey. Others are simply missing. Despite the bad start, the Pentagon insisted it remains committed to the training program, which is a linchpin of a strategy that depends on local ground forces taking advantage of American air strikes to recapture territory seized by ISIS. Hundreds more fighters are currently in training or waiting to start. So far the Pentagon has spent $42 million setting up the program and plans to spend a total of $500 million to train and equip 12,000 fighters.”

The Telegraph, August 10, 2015:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11794315/Al-Qaeda-in-Syria-says-withdrawing-from-frontline-areas-with-IS.html –

“Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria has declared it will withdraw from frontlines where it has been fighting against Islamic State because it does not want to cooperate with the US-led coalition.”…” Despite sharing their origins in al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and Isil have battled each other since a rancorous split in 2013.”…” Although it is thought to have received military and financial support from other members of the US-led coalition such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Jabhat al-Nusra has nevertheless repeatedly scuttled plans for Western support, branding Western-backed rebel factions as “collaborators.”

The Times of Israel, August 16, 2015:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/al-nusra-front-frees-7-us-backed-rebels-in-syria/

– “Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria has released seven members of a US-backed rebel faction that it abducted late last month, the rebel group said in a statement. The Division 30 rebel group said in a statement late Saturday that it hopes the Nusra Front will release the group’s commander, who has been held since July 30. Days after the abduction, the Nusra Front attacked the Division 30 command in northern Syria, leading to the near-collapse of the group, which has dozens of fighters.”… “The Division 30 statement described Nusra Front fighters as “brothers” and thanked them for the release, saying, “We value this noble step.” It said Division 30 is on the “same page with all holy warriors in Syria.”

The Independent, August 17, 2015:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-on-verge-of-sending-troops-into-syria-over-increased-threat-of-terrorist-attack-10458533.html

– “The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is believed to be preparing for a possible ground operation in Syria. Local news channel, Channel 2, reported a large scale drill by military forces along the border on Sunday which simulated a possible incursion into Syrian territory and the evacuation of Israeli citizens from nearby border towns.”

Free Beacon, August 18, 2015:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-trained-syrian-insurgent-plans-to-fight-assad-citing-pentagon-training-program/

– “A Syrian rebel trained by the Pentagon to fight the Islamic State plans to fight forces aligned with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In an exclusive interview with CNN conducted via Skype from Syria, Abu Iskander cited the U.S. training program when justifying whether or not the pro-U.S. Syrian rebels should engage Assad’s forces.”

Huffington Post, August 19, 2015:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sassounian/turkeys-pays-former-cia-d_b_8002534.html

– “The Wall Street Journal reported on August 12 that a senior US military official accused Turkey of deceiving the American government by allowing its use of Incirlik airbase to attack ISIS, as a cover for President Erdogan’s war on Kurdish fighters (PKK) in northern Iraq. So far, Turkey has carried out 300 air strikes against the PKK, and only three against ISIS!”… “To conceal its deception and mislead the American public, within days of starting its war on the Kurds, Ankara hired Squire Patton Boggs for $32,000 a month, as a subcontractor to the powerful lobbying firm, the Gephardt Group. Squire Patton Boggs includes former Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux, and retired White House official Robert Kapla.

The Gephardt lobbying team for Turkey consists of subcontractors Greenberg Traurig, Brian Forni, Lydia Borland, and Dickstein Shapiro LLP; the latter recently added to its lobbying staff former CIA Director Porter Goss. Other lobbying firms hired by Turkey are: Goldin Solutions, Alpaytac, Finn Partners, Ferah Ozbek, and Golin/Harris International. According to U.S. Justice Department records, Turkey pays these lobbying/public relations firms around $5 million a year. Furthermore, several U.S. non-profit organizations serve as fronts for the Turkish government to promote its interests in the United States and take Members of Congress and journalists on all-expense paid junkets to Turkey. Among the U.S. lobbyists for Turkey, perhaps the most questionable is Porter Goss, CIA Director from 2004 to 2006, who has agreed to sell his soul and possibly U.S. national secrets for a fistful of Turkish Liras.”

NBC News, August 20, 2015:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-launches-strikes-syria-after-rocket-attack-n413446

– “Four rockets were fired into Israel from Syria Thursday and the Israeli government accused an Iranian-backed group as being responsible. No injuries were reported in the 5:35 p.m. local time (10:35 a.m. ET) rocket attack in the Upper Galilee and Golan Heights, and the Israeli military responded by launching airstrikes and artillery attacks against 14 targets in the Syrian Golan Heights.”

The Guardian, August 20, 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/20/israel-hit-rockets-syria-confusion-blame

– “Israeli defence sources initially blame Palestinian Islamic Jihad, before switching to Iran’s Quds Force, then blaming Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad”

The Daily Star, August 21, 2015:

http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Aug-21/312109-second-group-of-us-trained-syrian-rebels-could-be-deployed-within-weeks-source.ashx

– “A second group of rebel fighters trained in Turkey by the U.S.-led coalition could be deployed to Syria within weeks as part of a campaign to push ISIS insurgents away from the border, diplomatic sources told Reuters Friday.”

Defense News, August 21, 2015:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2015/08/21/isis-used-mustard-gas-makhmour-against-kurds/32116637/

– “U.S. military officials in Iraq have issued preliminary confirmation that Islamic State militants used mustard gas in a mortar attack on Kurdish forces in August, a Defense Department official said.”

FARS News, August 22, 2015: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940531000300

– “The Syrian air defense system shot down an Israeli warplane violating the Arab country’s air space.”

Reuters, August 22, 2015:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/22/us-israel-iran-idUSKCN0QR0KR20150822

– “Israel’s political leaders pushed to attack Iran at least three times in the past few years but had to back down on the advice of the military and due to concerns about its ally the United States, former defense minister Ehud Barak said.”

The Jerusalem Post, August 24, 2015:

http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Israel-importing-77-percent-of-its-oil-from-Iraqi-Kurdistan-report-says-413056 –

“Israel may be importing some NIS 3.84 billion-worth of oil from the semi-autonomous northern Iraqi region of Kurdistan, a move that could have geopolitical and economic ramifications for both parties. On Sunday night, The Financial Times reported that Israel had imported as much as 77 percent of its oil supply from Kurdistan in recent months, bringing in some 19 million barrels between the beginning of May and August 11. During that period, more than a third of all northern Iraqi exports, shipped through Turkey’s Ceyhan port, went to Israel, with transactions amounting to almost $1b., the report said, citing “shipping data, trading sources and satellite tanker tracking.”

McClatchy, August 24, 2015:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article32206167.html

– “The kidnapping of a group of U.S.-trained moderate Syrians moments after they entered Syria last month to confront the Islamic State was orchestrated by Turkish intelligence, multiple rebel sources have told McClatchy. The rebels say that the tipoff to al Qaida’s Nusra Front enabled Nusra to snatch many of the 54 graduates of the $500 million program on July 29 as soon as they entered Syria, dealing a humiliating blow to the Obama administration’s plans for confronting the Islamic State.

The Daily Star, August 24, 2015: http://dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Aug-24/312519-us-turkey-to-launch-comprehensive-anti-isis-operation.ashx – “Turkey and the United States will soon launch “comprehensive” air operations to flush ISIS fighters from a zone in northern Syria bordering Turkey, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told Reuters Monday. Detailed talks between Washington and Ankara on the plans were completed on Sunday, and regional allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, as well as Britain and France may also take part, Cavusoglu said in an interview.”

New York Times, August 25, 2015:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/middleeast/pentagon-investigates-allegations-of-skewed-intelligence-reports-on-isis.html?_r=1

– “The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry.

The Nation, August 25, 2015:

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-civilian-toll-from-the-war-against-isis-is-huge-why-isnt-the-press-covering-it/

– “As of this month, the US-led coalition has been bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria for one year. So far, it has carried out over 5,900 strikes. In that time, the Pentagon has admitted to only two civilian deaths, continually insisting that its precision weapons have minimized civilian fatalities to a remarkable level—too remarkable to be believed. In June, Lt. Gen. John Hesterman, former combined forces air component commander, called the current air war against ISIS “the most precise and disciplined in the history of aerial warfare.” However, in a report published this month, a monitoring group called Airwars has documented at least 459 civilian deaths that it says were likely the result of the coalition bombing campaign—a far cry from the two deaths that have so far been admitted.”

Al-Jazeera, August 25, 2015:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/25/defense-department-manual-allows-for-journalists-detention.html

– “New Defense Department guidelines allow commanders to punish journalists and treat them as “unprivileged belligerents” if they believe journalists are sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy.”… “A person deemed to be an “unprivileged belligerent” is not entitled to the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. A commander could restrict from certain coverage areas or even hold indefinitely without charges any reporter considered an “unprivileged belligerent.”

The Independent, August 25, 2015:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executions-amnesty-international-beheadings-death-sentences-rate-under-king-salman-10470456.html

– “Saudi Arabia has executed at least 175 people in the past year, at a rate of one every two days, according to a report by Amnesty International. The kingdom killed 102 convicted criminals in the first six months of 2015 alone, putting it on course to beat its 1995 record number for the calendar year of 192. Those killed included children under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, and disabled people.”… “Amnesty said that Saudi Arabia carried out most of its executions in the period by beheading, although some were killed by firing squad.”

Longer/More In Depth Articles-Documents:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

Pentagon report predicted West’s support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

An Article by Seymour Hersh, titled “Whose sarin?”

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_12-13.pdf

Journal Article by Douglas Little, professor of history at Clark University, titled “Syria: Early Experiments in Covert Action”

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state-dbfa6f83bc1f

How the west created the Islamic State

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

An article by Seymour Hersh, titled “The Red Line and the Rat Line”

http://www.mintpressnews.com/4-million-muslims-killed-in-western-wars-should-we-call-it-genocide/208711/

4 Million Muslims Killed In Western Wars: Should We Call It Genocide?

http://web.archive.org/web/20120308220520/http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1671459_insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html

Wikileaks cables show military intervention in Syria”, US training “rebels” since 2011 and the complete grand plan

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/sleeping-with-the-devil-how-u-s-and-saudi-backing-of-al-qaeda-led-to-911.html

Sleeping With the Devil: How U.S. and Saudi Backing of Al Qaeda Led to 9/11

http://digwithin.net/2015/07/31/understanding-oil-qaeda/

Understanding Oil Qaeda

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

A highly important article written (in 2007) by Seymour Hersh, titled “The Redirection”.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030402124132/http://www.sundayherald.com/28224

The West’s battle for oil

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State “in order to isolate the Syrian regime”

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2009/6/iran%20strategy/06_iran_strategy.pdf

Which Path to Persia?

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/10/building-syrian-opposition-army-pollack/building-a-better-syrian-armyweb.pdf

Building a Better Syrian Opposition Army: How and Why

http://www.princeton.edu/~jns/publications/Sinjar_2_July_23.pdf

Bombers, Bank Accounts and Bleedout

http://www.meforum.org/5317/turkey-isis

Turkey’s Double Game with ISIS

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/07/28/the-syrian-bet

An article by Seymour Hersh, titled “The Syrian Bet”

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/03/whitehouse200703?printable=true&curre

From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/ex-intel-officials-pentagon-report-proves-us-complicity-in-isis-fabef96e20da

Ex-intel officials: Pentagon report proves US complicity in ISIS

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/24.full

Oil and the American Century

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East/Yinon Plan

http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

https://web.archive.org/web/20131231013203/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

http://www.irmep.org/PDF/3-27-2003_Clean_Break_or_Dirty_War.pdf

A Clean Break or Dirty War? Israel’s Foreign Policy Directive to the United States

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Rebuilding America’s Defenses (Project for the New American Century)

http://newint.org/features/2009/10/01/blowback-extended-version/

Our Terrorists

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html

Research Paper: ISIS-Turkey List

https://kanaanonline.org//articles/00361.pdf

Britain and the Rise of Wahhabism and the House of Saud

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30796539

Shakespear of Arabia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/164184?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Reviewed Work: Arabia’s Frontiers: The Story of Britain’s Boundary Drawing in the Desert

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/pentagon/#article/part1

Unaccountable: The high cost of the Pentagon’s bad bookkeeping

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/177

Report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force for the period from 20 November 2014 to 3 March 2015

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2190250-airwars-cause-for-concern-civilians-killed-by.html

Cause for Concern: Documents Civilian Airstrikes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco#History

Saudi Aramco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_John_Philby

St. John Philby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Cox

Percy Cox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucial_States

Trucial States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Jeddah_%281927%29

Treaty of Jeddah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Darin

Treaty of Darin

http://www.rt.com/op-edge/240365-lebanon-revolution-anniversary-cedar-2005/

Ten years on, Lebanon’s ‘Cedar Revolution’

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lebanons-future-is-on-the-line-and-it-directly-affects-syria/5471521

Lebanon’s Future Is on the Line, and It Directly Affects Syria

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

The CIA and the Media

 Videos of Interest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgBsTT0h_SA

A discussion between Jeffrey Goldberg and the former Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren. At the beginning of the conversation Michael Oren argues that the Sunnis are the “lesser of the evils” between Sunnis and Shias. He then goes on to argue that the Shias are killing a lot more people than Sunnis, predominantly through Iranian proxies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeyRwFHR8WY

Roland Dumas (former French politician) states that the British prepared for war in Syria 2 years before the eruption of the crisis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8kKCCnOm1Y

Retired General McInerney Says U.S. Helped Build ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

Hillary Clinton: We created Al-Qaeda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI

The Covert Origins of ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7ZHenQnu4

Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist, Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnV_pNe_BB0

Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist, Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Do6kdi1UXxhY&has_verified=1

Origins of ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCBhyzRELLw

What The Media Isn’t Telling You About Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98

Wesley Clark: “Our friends and allies funded ISIS to destroy Hezbollah”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=675&v=SG3j8OYKgn4

Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael T Flynn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo2GYQxopbM

New Evidence US Backed ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=33&v=nA39iVSo7XE

Dempsey: I know of Arab allies who fund ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94

The Islamic State (Full Length)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NND2kacY2TY

The Origins Of The Rise Of ISIS Lie In US Arming The FSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Kpm-yHCzw

Saudi royal family corruption, Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-A-ImHhjA

Saudi royal family corruption, Part 2

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3875.htm

FSA General Gives Int’l Community One Month to Provide Anti-Tank, Anti-Aircraft Weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8NlFaHvPHQ

CIA Funds and Manipulates US news media – Operation mockingbird

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sSDUN-esUI

Project for the New American Century

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2WrwUM2RwI

US Intelligence Confirms US Support for ISIS

Kevin Borge is an independent researcher located in South Florida. He holds an M.A. in Islamic Studies from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a B.S. in Legal Studies from The University of Central Florida. He has traveled and lived throughout Israel and Palestine and his academic interests include Arab history, Christian Zionism and U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

Virtually unrestricted NSA data mining tramples on Fourth Amendment rights brazenly. In December 2013, Federal District Court of the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon ruled NSA spying unconstitutional, saying:

The threshold issue is whether plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is violated when the Government indiscriminately collects their telephone metadata along with the metadata of hundreds of millions of other citizens without any particularized suspicion of wrongdoing, retains all of that metadata for five years, and then queries, analyzes, and investigates that data without prior judicial approval of the investigative targets.

I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.

Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

On Friday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overruled him. It’s perhaps America’s most extremist appeals court. People for the American Way (PFAW) explained its character and power as follows:

Despite progressive victories in 2012, the far right’s outsized influence on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gives them the power to undermine progressive laws and thwart the agenda that Americans elected President Obama to pursue.

This court’s decisions affect the entire country, making it second only to the Supreme Court in national importance. (It’s) dominated by right-wing ideologues who are deeply hostile to the use of a robust federal government to tackle national problems and make our lives better.

It has exclusive judicial authority over federal agency decisions and regulations affecting everyone. Its rulings are “almost guaranteed to be the last (judicial) word,” said PFAW.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called its Friday ruling “disappointing and, worse, based on a mistaken concern about the underlying facts.”

It remanded the case back to Judge Richard Leon. Klayman plaintiffs must prove the impossible – provide evidence that their phone records were collected. No ruling was rendered on metadata collection constitutionality. Friday’sdecision effectively endorsed it.

EFF explained recent government “releases…make clear that the plaintiffs’ records were in fact collected.” Documents obtained from a New York Times FOIA request revealed Verizon Wireless collects bulk telephone records of its subscribers without their knowledge – at least since 2010, likely earlier.

“The government should give up its shell game here and admit the time frame that it collected the Klayman plaintiffs records, along with all other Verizon Wireless customers,” said EFF.

Most important is unconstitutional mass NSA spying on virtually all Americans – for phony national security reasons. An earlier article explained the following:

In June 2013, the ACLU challenged “the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records (ACLU v. Clapper).

It argued that doing so violates Fourth and First Amendment rights, saying:

Because the NSA’s aggregation of metadata constitutes an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search, it is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

The call-tracking program also violates the First Amendment, because it vacuums up sensitive information about associational and expressive activity.

NSA claims authorization under the Patriot Act’s Section 215 – the so-called “business records” provision.

It permits warrantless searches without probable cause. It violates fundamental First Amendment rights. It does so by mandating secrecy.

It prohibits targeted subjects from telling others what’s happening to them. It compromises free expression, assembly and association.

It authorizes the FBI to investigate anyone based on what they say, write, or do with regard to groups they belong to or associate with.

It violates Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections by not telling targeted subjects their privacy was compromised. It subverts fundamental freedoms for contrived, exaggerated, or nonexistent security reasons.

At the time of its suit, the ACLU said “(w)hatever Section 215’s ‘relevance’ requirement might allow, it does not permit the government to cast a seven-year dragnet sweeping up every phone call made or received by Americans.”

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorized surveillance relating to “foreign intelligence information” between “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers.”

It restricts spying on US citizens and residents to those engaged in espionage in America and territory under US control.

No longer. Today anything goes. America is a total surveillance society. Obama officials claim no authority can challenge them. Governing this way is called tyranny.

The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. It held Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act doesn’t permit bulk collection of Americans’ phone records. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously – overturning a lower court decision.

The Obama administration argued that the ACLU lacked “standing” to challenge NSA surveillance practices, and Congress “precluded” judicial review except by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court most often only hearing government arguments.

The appeals court rejected this reasoning, saying:

If the government is correct, it could use Section 215 to collect and store in bulk any other existing metadata available anywhere in the private sector, including metadata associated with financial records, medical records, and electronic communications (including e‐mail and social media information) relating to all Americans.

Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans.

The DC Circuit Appeals Court refused to strike down mass data-mining – violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans – effectively supporting tyranny by not opposing it.

“Instead, it endorsed the government’s argument that no public, adversarial court can review its actions unless those seeking review can prove with some certainty that they were one of the millions whose records were collected,” said EFF.

Its ruling requires mass data mining challengers to “perform an almost impossible task – proving the still secret details of an admitted mass surveillance program in order to have a court determine whether it is constitutional.”

The ruling further erodes freedom in America, fast disappearing altogether. It’s a triumph for tyranny. EFF said it’ll “continue to fight to hold the NSA accountable for mass collection of Americans’ private information. Our phone and Internet networks should be protected from unfettered government spying.”

Enactment of the Orwellian USA Freedom Act (the renamed Patriot Act) changed little. NSA and other US spy agencies continue trampling on constitutional protections.

Big Brother is real. Unconstitutional mass surveillance is official US policy. It’s one of the most defining characteristics of unchecked police state power.

Edward Snowden said he “do(esn’t) want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”

Nor should anyone tolerate unconstitutional intrusiveness.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

August 29 marks the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. A personal note: Its devastation and ugly aftermath inspired me at the time to begin writing about major world and national issues along with media work pro bono.

It bears repeating some what that first article said – calling Katrina less what nature wrought, more a conspiracy of federal, state and city government along with business interests against the area’s most vulnerable residents – mainly its poor Black population.

Over a million people were displaced. Over 1,000 died. Cashing in on disaster followed. Former Republican congressman/current lobbyist Richard Baker said at the time: “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it but God did.”

New Orleans developer Joseph Canizaro added: “I think we have a clean sheet to start again (and take advantage of) big opportunities.”

Their scheme: Erasing poor communities, replacing them with upscale development. Battered Gulf coast areas became a laboratory for disaster capitalism pioneered in Iraq.

Some of the same familiar names were involved – Halliburton, Bechtel and other profiteers aiming to cash in big. Plans were made in advance. Execution followed storm damage.

Davis-Bacon law guaranteeing prevailing wages on federally funded or assisted construction contracts was suspended – letting contractors employ undocumented workers at poverty wages and no benefits.

Blackwater USA and other paramilitaries were deployed straightaway – in full battle gear, patrolling streets in SUVs or unmarked cars with no license plates.

Army combat troops, National Guard forces, US Border Patrol operatives, and out-of-state police followed. Devastated New Orleans became a battleground.

In August 2013, Loyola University New Orleans Law Professor Bill Quigley wrote about conditions in New Orleans eight years post-Katrina.

Nearly 100,000 (largely Black) people “never got back,” he said. “(T)he city remains incredibly poor, jobs and income vary dramatically by race, rents are up, public transportation is down, traditional public housing is gone, life expectancy differs dramatically by race and place, and most public education has been converted into charter schools.”

Quigley explained city population declined from 455,000 pre-Katrina to about 369,000 in 2013. Nearly half of working-age Black men were unemployed.

Area African-American households earn half as much as white ones. Jobs continue shifting to urban areas. New Orleans public housing is gone. Poverty is double the national average.

Public transportation is woefully poor. Public education changed dramatically – to 80% quasi-public charter schools, an interim step toward likely privatization.

Imprisonment rates are four times higher that the national average. Quigley called New Orleans losing 948 square miles of coastal wetlands from 1932 to 2010 “the biggest crime of all.”

On August 27, he commented on New Orleans 10 years post-Katrina, saying tens of thousands of the city’s “sickest, oldest, poorest, youngest, people with disabilities and the like” were left behind.

Plans were to eliminate all unwanted residents. “Well, you can’t leave if you’re in a hospital. You can’t leave if you’re a nurse.”

You can’t leave if you are a patient. You can’t leave if you’re in a nursing home. You can’t leave if you don’t have a car. All these things.

They didn’t…plan for that. And so, we’re talking about somewhere in the neighborhood, I think, of 100,000 (unwanted) people probably (remaining) in the metropolitan New Orleans area.

When Katrina struck, lots of nursing home and hospital deaths occurred, Quigley explained. “The jail was full, 7,000 or so prisoners there without electricity, water, everything…(P)eople (were) stranded on house tops…”

Mandatory evacuation was ordered, but there were no buses, no trains. Anyone without transportation had no way out.

Tourist, business and other areas important to New Orleans largely recovered – “100,000 of our sisters and brothers in the African-American community never made it back, ever,” Quigley explained.

And returning poor people are worse off than ever. “Recovery has been a tale of two cities.” Privileged residents are well served. Blacks, the elderly, disabled and other disadvantaged ones were left out.

Bush and Obama administrations did nothing to help – serving rich and powerful interests exclusively, ignoring others most in need.

On August 27, Obama visited New Orleans for the first time as president, ignoring needs of its most disadvantaged throughout his tenure.

He lied claiming “(m)y administration is going to stand with you and fight alongside you until the job is done, until (the city) is all the way back. All the way.”

Promises made throughout his tenure were systematically broken. America’s most disadvantaged in New Orleans and nationwide are more on their own unaided by all levels of government since pre-Great Depression days. Nothing in prospect suggests change.

New Orleans remains a window on America’s future. Survival increasingly depends on the ability to pay. Those unable are neglected, abandoned, ignored and forgotten.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

 If you think our First Amendment rights are being trampled here in America left and right, check out what’s going on in Spain.

This woman posted the following picture of a police car parked in a handicapped spot on her Facebook page with the caption “Park where you bloody well please and you won’t even be fined.”

Now, because of Spain’s Orwellian “Citizens Security Law” which went into effect July 1st, they have fined her €800 or nearly $900 USD simply for sharing the picture on social media. Police were reportedly able to track her down within 48 hours.

That’s because the so-called “Citizens Security Law,” which the people in Spain lovingly refer to as the “gagging law,” has a clause that says, “the unauthorised use of images of police officers that might jeopardise their or their family’s safety or that of protected facilities or police operations”. The fines for this can go up to an astounding €30,000 (nearly $33,700 USD).

Apparently sharing the fact that your local officer can take up a parking spot designated for a handicapped person, an act you would be heavily fined for, is not “legal” in Spain because it “endangers” that cop’s “personal safety.”

When the police were asked how the photo had put them at risk under the definition of the law, spokesman Fernando Portillo said, “the officers felt the woman had impugned their honour by posting the picture,” according to The Guardian. Portillo said police can park wherever they want when they are in an emergency, and the officer in the photo parked in the handicapped spot because someone had vandalized a nearby park.

If you think about this logically, it obviously makes no sense. The only way a picture like that would endanger that cop’s safety is if someone saw the photo and got mad enough to commit violence against the cop because he parked in a handicapped spot… in which case, it would actually be the cop endangering his own safety and making himself look bad by parking in a handicapped spot to begin with.

Then again, there’s really no point in trying to argue with an Orwellian police state. It’s not there to make sense. It’s there to control everyone. Completely.

Not that it’s even necessary, but to further prove this is simply all about keeping Spain’s citizens from speaking out against their police in a public forum, the first guy who got slapped with a fine under the law was someone who merely called his local police “a pack of slackers” on Facebook.

Source The Daily Sheeple

The encroachment of self-help kiosks and grocery store scanners has led doomsayers to suggest automation threatens the workforce of the future. A new report argues it will create new business sectors and new jobs as well.

ORIENTAL REVIEW publishes exclusive English translation of the interview given by Andrew Korybko to the Macedonian TV presenter Slobodan Tomic, the host of “Гласот на Народот” (Vox Populi) show.

They speak about the current migrant crisis in Europe in the context of Mideast destabilization following the “Arab Spring” and why the Balkans and Greece are chosen as a gateway for the masses of miscellaneous refugees to the EU. Much attention is given to the threat of the radical ISIL-linked elements penetrating Europe and the back-stage role of the US in this process.

How do you evaluate the current situation of Mideast refugees transiting through Macedonia and Serbia en route to the EU?

The crisis is totally out of control, and it’s direct blowback from the US and its allies’ regime change operations in Libya and Syria. Europe gains nothing whatsoever from this and is anxiously trying to mitigate the fallout while giving off the impression of partial compliance with its heavily promoted ‘values’, but conversely, Europe’s pain is the US’ gain. Washington is seeing to it that the continent’s most prominent countries (France and Germany, in particular) are caught up in a demographic nightmare, a time bomb of sorts that can be strategically activated at will in the event that these states ever decide to pursue policies independent of the US’ dictates.

They already had their own preexisting issues before this, but now they’re being exacerbated and creating clear tension between identity groups and political parties, opening new avenues for the US to exercise its stereotypical divide-and-rule policies when needed. To put it frankly, the US purposely created the conditions that sparked the refugee crisis, and it’s weaponizing the individuals that are fleeing from these theaters to use them as unwitting tools in a larger power play against Europe. In the course of events, the refugees (identified by the US as ‘strategic weapons/assets’) plow through the Balkans and simultaneously achieve one of Washington’s other goals, which is to destabilize Serbia and Macedonia. Everything that’s going on is basically the application of chaos theory in a geopolitical context.

Why do they opt for taking this route? Is it coincidental or something consciously chosen?

The US exercises certain degrees of situational influence to ‘guide’ the refugees along this route, just as it’s capable of corralling ISIL in the direction of its shared strategic objectives in Syria, for example. To accomplish this task, its intelligence agencies exert influence on the covert network of human traffickers facilitating these migrant flows, getting them to believe that the Macedonia-Serbia-Hungary route is the fastest and safest one for their ‘clients’. From the viewpoint of the migrants and traffickers, this satisfies the criteria they’re looking for – speed and relative safety (as in not getting caught) – while for the US, it accomplishes the destabilization of these two geostrategic countries with little to no cost involved on its part. Everything is taken care of through proxy, and the US only has to create the conditions needed and give the guiding push in order for the chaotic processes it’s unleashed to autonomously upset the given order on their own.

Why is our southern neighbor Greece organizing buses and sending the refugees to our borders? Shouldn’t they be sending them back to where they came from?

At first, it appeared as though the Greek government was completely overwhelmed with the crisis and powerless to act in containing it (also purposely being deprived of help from its EU and NATO ‘allies’ as part of a ‘bargaining mechanism’ to pressure the Tsipras government into submitting to the debt deal), but now it’s clear that some of the Greeks are actively aiding and abetting this process. What really stands out as evidence of this is the Greek government’s plan to ship the refugees from Kos island to the northern Greek mainland, thereby putting them within easy reach of the Macedonian border. Why not send them closer to the Albanian or Bulgarian borders, why the Macedonian one? Could it be that certain figures in Greece have a deep-seated vendetta against Macedonia and her people and are seeking to use this crisis to punish the country? Could it also be that these very same government figures might have been given orders by the EU and NATO to do these functions as part of a shadow deal agreed to in exchange for EU bailout funds? No matter what the reason is, it’s become evident that some figures in the Greek government are complicit in the weaponization of Mideast refugees against Macedonia.

Why doesn’t NATO or anyone else help the refugees? It’s clear that these people see Europe as a dreamland, but why is that, anyhow? And why are they going through Orthodox countries on their way to the Schengen Zone, why not through Albania-Bosnia-Croatia-Slovenia? They’re part of Europe, after all, but could it be that NATO is looking after its interests in these countries and directing the migrants elsewhere?

Macedonia has been singled out for a couple reasons, but they all go back to the regime change that was plotted against the country and attempted by Zoran Zaev (who was acting on behalf of his American patrons). There is no intrinsic characteristic that makes Macedonia more ‘attractive’ to traversing migrants than Albania or Bulgaria, for example, and the same north-south transport routes that some analysts say are responsible for this are also present in both of those countries. What’s more, why don’t’ the migrants just use mainland Greece as a stepping stone for final boat ride to Italy? The reason the US and its intelligence agencies don’t promote these routes is because they specifically have certain strategic objectives that they fulfill by guiding the migrants through Macedonia and Serbia. They scare the traffickers into thinking that they’d be busted if they go through Albania, Bulgaria, or across the Ionian Sea, which is how they manipulate them into overwhelming choosing the Macedonia-Serbia route. The US is well aware of the destabilization that follows in the wake of tens of thousands of refugees flooding across the borders of these relatively small states, which is why it does everything it can to avoid having this happen to its Albania and Bulgarian allies, but intentionally guides these illegal migrant flows into Macedonia and Serbia.

Why don’t the migrants go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and similar countries in the region? These states share the same religion as most of the migrants and are also among the richest in the world.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar only want migrants that can work menial jobs and be controlled, which is why they instead prefer South Asians from India and Pakistan. Destitute Syrians and Libyans would be a burden to their national budgets, which both absolute monarchies prefer to keep exclusively for the benefit of their actual citizens. Also, the migrants are fleeing sectarian warfare and terrorist groups, and those two countries are the largest state sponsors of terrorism in the world, with their ideologies being directly to blame for the wars in Libya and Syria. It’s for these reasons why those refugees don’t go to either state, and plus, they know that even in the unlikely event that they decided to do so, they’d be immediately kicked out, jailed, or possibly even killed by the security forces (which is even more likely if they are of a non-Sunni sect).

How can Macedonia possibly deal with this crisis, and who can help it?

Macedonia took a patriotic and pragmatic stand by declaring a state of emergency and temporarily restricting access through its southern border, but this proved unable to stem the overwhelming tide of refugees. When the crowds got violent and the military was forced to respond with tear gas and rubber bullets, Skopje was met with vague EU criticism about ‘human rights’ and the ‘restraint of force’, which proved that Brussels isn’t sincere in helping Macedonia solve this problem. Thus, the government is heavily pressured into the ‘lesser evil’ of reluctantly allowing the migrants to traverse its territory in as controlled of a manner as possible as opposed to stopping them at the Greek border. This choice was made because Macedonia is receiving no help whatsoever from its ‘partners’ in preventing them from crossing, and it doesn’t want to be in a position where any use of force against them is manipulated by the international (Western) media into setting off a new round of anti-government agitation.

In an ideal world, the EU and NATO wouldn’t have launched the Wars on Libya and Syria that preceded this crisis, but given that they’ve regretfully occurred and the situation is what it is at the present, if they were Macedonia’s true ‘partners’ and intent on helping it, they’d send more than paltry and insufficient funds. In fact, they’d take an active stance in solving the problem at its continental source, Greece, and properly assisting the government there. Instead none of this is happening, and the EU is only throwing money at the problem to make it look like it’s doing something. In reality, it would rather leave the refugees in the Balkans and wall itself off from the region if it ever came to that point. Macedonia, in effect, doesn’t have any friends in the EU, NATO, or the Greek government, and this crisis simply proves what many people had already suspected.

Where does Russia stand in all of this, and what role can it play in fighting against ISIL? The reason I ask is because there’s a particularly interesting analysis coming out of the country by academician and historian Jelena Guskova, who warns that a so-called “Green Transversal” project is almost finished and is waiting for its final phase to be launched at the end of the month. At that point, she says that armed terrorists will attack Macedonia, southern Serbia (the Presevo Valley), and Bosnia. Beforehand, she says that terrorists will try to make a diversion in Serbia to distract the attention of the Serbian population, in order to catch everyone off guard with the follow-up attack. What do you think about this?

This is a very broad question but I’ll attempt to address it as concisely as possible. Russia is of the belief that the US and NATO are to blame for the refugee crisis because they initiated the regime change conflicts in Libya and Syria. Appertaining to Russia’s role in fighting ISIL, I wrote a comprehensive piece for Sputnik about its recent diplomatic efforts in coordinating an inclusive anti-ISIL coalition that I suggest readers refer to if they’re interested. About Guskova, she makes an excellent point about American strategy in the Balkans, which is that it seeks to use Islamic extremism as its preferred ‘agent of change’ in the heart of the region (Macedonia, Serbia, and Bosnia), although I’m unsure of exactly when the US will formally redeploy this mechanism. Macedonia narrowly averted a larger terrorist war when its military raided the Kumanovo hideout and prevented the perpetrators from attacking Skopje and elsewhere, but the threat still remains. Likewise, that very same threat of Albanian-affiliated terrorism is also present in the Presevo Valley, but the point needs to be stressed that the vast majority of Albanians in both countries (especially those in Macedonia) want nothing to do with this scheme, but it’s being associated with them and their ethnic group out of American grand strategic motivations. Bosnia is in a similar situation when it comes to Islamic extremism, too, and I wrote about this for Sputnik in a different article.

Russian academician and historian Jelena Guskova warned that implementation of the “green transversal” has entered the final stage, and that armed attacks might occur in August in Serbia, BiH and Macedonia.

Should this be taken seriously, or is this a type of spin coming out of Russia that intends to damage the region’s relations with the US and EU?

Guskova’s assessment very closely resembles my own for the region, and both of our forecasts need to be taken with the utmost of seriousness because of the far-reaching consequences involved. Just because we’re both based in Russia doesn’t mean that we have any conspiratorial reason for our analyses, and they’re both based on enough documented facts and strategic reasoning as to withstand close criticism. The most that any naysayer could point to is that the US doesn’t have this sort of ‘intent’ that Guskova and I ascribe to it, but in response to that, I’d ask the reader to recall the US’ purposely destructive policies all across the world which refute that suggestion. For the US, the Balkans are a future Islamic terrorist ‘playground’, thought of as being a ‘reserve force’ for pressuring Europe when and if the time is right.

Part of the reason for this is geopolitical (the Balkans are the perfect’ backdoor’ to the EU) and the other relates to energy (destabilize the Russian-friendly governments of Macedonia and Serbia to sabotage Balkan Stream), but taken together, the US has very real strategic reasons for why it wants to destroy the Balkans if it can’t fully control them. Also, working with Islamic fundamentalists for grand strategic ends isn’t anything new for the US, since everyone is well aware of how the US founded Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and a Judicial Watch document released in May proves that the Defense Intelligence Agency predicted the rise of ISIL and actively encouraged such a scenario. It’s not just non-state Islamic extremist actors that the US deals with, but state-organized ones too, such as Saudi Arabia and even Morsi’s former Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. About the latter, the reader must be reminded that the Muslim Brotherhood is recognized as the terrorist organization that it truly is by the governments of Russia and Syria among others, so accusing the US of siding with terrorists isn’t just rhetoric, but a legal reality.

Another thing that she talks about is how terrorists will stage an attack which will claim the lives of many Albanian civilians, who will then be pressured into launching a struggle for “the salvation from tyranny” that they experience in Macedonia, Serbia, and Bosnia. She warns that the strongest possibility for this happening might be in Republica Srpska, and that under the pretext of “regulating the situation”, NATO could stage an intervention.

 That’s a very realistic scenario, but I’d take it one step further by forecasting that this false flag event won’t just target Albanians, but Muslims in general (if it does in fact occur, that is). There were already attempts to politicize the anti-terrorist operation carried out in Kumanovo by trying to make it out as some war of “Slavs/Christians versus Albanians/Muslims”, but thankfully that woefully misguided perspective didn’t catch on and was exposed for the lie that it was. But still, it shows that there is a precedent to label all Albanians/Muslims as victims of Slavs/Christians no matter what the context, all with the intent of fomenting a religious ‘counter-struggle’, an actual jihad, against the majority inhabitants in the Balkans (Christian Slavs).

This isn’t to either side’s advantage, but is really yet another wily manipulation by the US to provoke a region-wide divide-and-conquer identity war. The US’ history of involvement in Bosnia and “Kosovo” indicates that it would take the side of Muslims in the short term should any forthcoming conflict arise and it chooses to directly intervene, but this group would just be functioning as the US’ ‘convenient fools’, and they’ll eventually be betrayed even quicker than the US turned on decades-long ally Mubarak should the US deem it strategically suitable. If they think that being Muslim automatically entitles them to preferential treatment by the US government, then they’re obviously not aware of American history in the Mideast, since sooner or later, they too will be betrayed at some point, whether they realize it now or not.

Guskova also studies the “Islamic State’s” influence in the Balkans, and according to her, terrorists are infiltrating the region under the cover of being Mideast refugees. What’s your take on this?

Once more, Ms. Guskova is absolutely right. As I told Marija Kotovska during an interview she did with me for Netpress at the end of July:

“Hungary stated that at least 90,000 people have illegally entered the country so far this year, and that they expect a total of 300,000 by year’s end. Most of them likely came from the southern route, meaning that they passed through Macedonia at some time or another. Taking into account an extremely conservative estimate that 1% of them could be terrorists, then that calculates to nearly 1,000 terrorists so far (and up to 3,000 by the end of the year) coming into Macedonia for an unspecified amount of time. To put it another way, that’s about 100x the number of terrorists that were killed during the Kumanovo attack.”

There is no doubt that the refugee crisis is being exploited by terrorist groups as cover for infiltrating the region, and this is being done in full compliance with American foreign policy precepts. The “Islamic State” is basically a ‘territorial Al Qaeda’ that can be deployed anywhere in Africa-Eurasia that is of strategic benefit to the US, and right now, it looks as though its newest theater will be the Balkans, using sympathetic Albanians (who are but a tiny fraction of their overall population, it needs to be underscored) as their local anchor. The objective is to radicalize the transnational Albanian community particularly in Macedonia and Serbia so as to provoke the larger Christian/Slav vs. Muslim/Albanian war that the US is hoping for. Hopefully both sides realize what the game is and how the US is desperately trying to manipulate them into this dire scenario.

Guskova says that the Americans want to subjugate the Slavic people in the Balkans that they haven’t ever subdued, despite the enormous pressure against them and the imposition of certain puppet regimes. She points to Republika Srpska strengthening its position, Macedonia defending its independence, and Serbia refusing to recognize Kosovo. Your thoughts?

It is certainly true that Macedonia, Serbia, and Republika Srpska have yet to be subjugated, despite certain periods of their history where they came close to having this happen, but the US wants to dominate all the peoples of the Balkans, including doing so for perpetuity with those it currently controls (Bosniaks, Croats, Albanians). Macedonia, Serbia, and Republika Srpska form a geostrategic network of states that I’ve termed the “Central Balkans”, in that they form not only the geographic center of this region, but that they also have in common their strong patriotism in resisting outside domination. Furthermore, all three of them practice pragmatic policies with Russia.

It’s telling that some of the smallest countries in Europe happen to be the only ones with the courage to refuse the US’ pressure in sanctioning Russia, as not only have they refused to do this, but they’ve even deepened their ties with Moscow during this time via their cooperation on the Balkan Stream gas project. Their symbolic actions signify a rejection of US unipolarity, and accordingly, the US has targeted them for immediate destabilization in response. This is why Macedonia had the earlier Color Revolution and Albanian-affiliated Unconventional War attempts unleashed against it, Serbia is being pulled by the EU and the US, and Republika Srpska has to endure thinly veiled terroristic threats by Sarajevo loyalists. It shouldn’t be seen as a coincidence then that all three, but especially Macedonia and Serbia, are now focal points of the refugee crisis.

There’s a noticeable increase in the activities of terrorist organizations and Islamists in the Balkans. One can find “Wahhabis” and the “Red Rose” in Serbia and Montenegro, “Tariq” in Macedonia, and Al Qaeda cells in Kosovo and northern Albania, according to Guskova. Can you comment on this?

The creation of terrorist nests such as the ones you mentioned is all part and parcel of the larger grand strategy of unleashing the US’ planned Slav/Christian versus Albanian/Muslim regional war. The Muslim population of the Balkans isn’t naturally receptive to this rhetoric, hence why the US must brainwash them through the import of radical Islamists under the cover of the refugee crisis. Also, some of the refugees themselves might be more fundamentalist than the secular Muslims historically native to the Balkans, so if they remain in the region (either out of choice or because they simply can’t get into the EU), some of them could work to change local attitudes on this topic.

The psychological operations being waged against the region therefore aren’t focused as much on Macedonia, Serbia, and Republika Srpska (although they’re definitely targeted, albeit for different [regime change] reasons), but on the Albanians and Bosniaks in a bid to get them to view all regional dynamics through the false and highly secularized prism of a “War on Islam”. If the US can brainwash at least 10% of each of these respective Muslim communities into falling for that propaganda (the so-called “tipping point theory”), then it can have a sizeable enough ‘domestic/grassroots’ force in each of the three prospective battlefields (Macedonia, Serbia, and Republika Srpska) to initiate this war and be confident that it has the ‘staying power’ to continue indefinitely and ‘autonomously’. It’s for this reason why counter-radicalization initiatives on behalf of each government and their local Muslim representatives are instrumental in preempting this dangerous development and need to be immediately implemented if they aren’t already.

In Bosnia just recently, Islamists came forward making demands that the country remain unitary under the implicit threat that any change in its status could lead to terrorist attacks and other destabilizing actions. Could it be that this is part of the “Green Transversal” project?

This is definitely related to the larger project that we’ve been discussing and the US’ geopolitical bullying of the Central Balkans. Republika Srpska has a constitutional right to reject the nationwide court system that Sarajevo is advocating, as there is nothing contained in the Dayton Accords about the necessity of such an entity. The reason it’s being pushed then is to weaken the Republic’s sovereignty in preparation of a wider power play against its entire autonomy, hence why President Dodik and his people firmly refuse it and are so impassioned in fighting against it. Now that they’ve taken their stand, however, the Sarajevo loyalists are initiating a preplanned information war accusing Republika Srpska of ‘separatism’ and ‘violating the Dayton Accords’.

This isn’t true in any shape or form, but they’re doing this to damage the Republic’s reputation and precondition the European and American masses for a coming wave of formal aggression against it. That’s actually what the whole point of the UK’s Srebrenica UNSC provocation was, which aimed to paint Republika Sprksa as a ‘genocide-created’ entity that has no right to exist. Russia vetoed the resolution for exactly this reason, but the teachable moment here is that the West showed its hand for what it plans to do in Bosnia. It’s waging an asymmetrical war against Republika Srpska that’s already in the information stage, with the ultimate goal of taking it to the economic and terrorist phases whenever the decision is made. Unleashing the scourge of Islamic extremism against it (as like what happened during the Zvornik ‘test run’) is intended to serve as one of the triggers for the wider regional war that the US is plotting.

Some analysts say that the Hungarian border wall will significantly increase the number of Mideast migrants who remain in Serbia and Macedonia and whose real identity can’t ever be ascertained. What do you think about this threat?

The wall is Europe’s response to the crisis, which as I mentioned at the beginning of the interview, is to seal itself off from the Balkans if the situation becomes uncontrollable. The fact that Hungary is moving forward with such speed in implementing this idea shows how serious its national government is in tackling this crisis (and how severe it expects it to get in the future), and since it’s being accepted by the EU without any significant push back, it can also be seen as representing Brussels’ own take on the matter. This is important because it vividly demonstrates how the EU is abandoning Serbia and Macedonia at a critical time when both countries need as much help as they can possibly get, thus revealing that Brussels never had any positive intentions towards either of their prospective memberships. These two countries have always been seen as future markets and nothing else, never having ever been thought of as equal partners, which is why the EU doesn’t mind that countless refugees and the terrorists that have infiltrated the region alongside them remain the sole responsibility of the Balkans. The social, economic, political, and security destabilizations associated with them are tremendously impactful in all regards and disturbingly very real, but the EU prefers not to deal with this, and would rather accept the possible collapse of the Central Balkan states than lend an effective and helping hand in assisting with their ordeals.

Most of the refugees are men between the ages of 27-35, 94% of whom are Muslim, and more than half of whom have no family with them and avoid all forms of media exposure. Who’s funding these people, or how do they support themselves?

Like I said previously, the vast majority of the refugees are not terrorists, but many of them do have suspicious profiles that rightfully raise red flags. The problem is that there is no way to verify their identity, and thus, no way for states to see if they’re on any terrorist watch lists. Even if they aren’t, nobody knows the intent of these individuals, and it does seem odd that so many of these men (who in traditional Muslim cultures should already be married with children by this stage of their lives) are flooding into the EU without any family members. Something’s not adding up, and it’s unlikely that most of them just happen to not conform to their demographic expectations or are violating the social code of their countries by leaving their wives and children behind. It’s not known how they received the money to fund their journey, but it could possibly have been through their families’ savings and/or selling off their possessions and property. Still, those that are affiliated with terrorism are likely funded by other terrorists, and given the richness of the “Islamic State”, it could theoretically be funding thousands of terrorists to infiltrate the EU and the Balkans under the cover of being refugees.

I’d like to thank all of our readers for their interest in my interview. The future I paint is a dark one, but it’s not inevitable and it’s possible to successfully resist it. The most important thing everyone can do is inform one another of the true nature of the US’ plot against the Balkans, and work together to unite in opposing it. All ethnicities and religions need to be aware of the US’ mechanisms in dividing them from one another, and once this realization is reached and unity of purpose is achieved, then it’s much easier to form a different future and build a better tomorrow for everyone.

 

The last day was marked by moderate intensity military actions. Sporadic shellings and firefights were observed at the Donetsk Airport and Spartak. 

Then clashes with usage of artillery and mortars started at the Stannica Luganskaya and Schastie. The settlement of Raevka was shelled by Ukrainian battle tanks. An electric power substation was damaged, there is no electricity in the settlement now.

At the evening Ukrainian military started to shell the settlement of Spartak and the DPR capital from the direction of Vodyanoe-Opitnoe.

Ukrainian forces at Granitnoe and Chermalik shelled shelled Telmanovo. An important fact, that pro-Kiev militants used MLRS Grad at Chermalik.

Gorlovka also came under Ukrainian fire. The activity of Kiev military was fixed at Dzerjinsk.

In the night, Lugansk was shelled by artillery based at the Kiev-controlled settlemment of Olhovka. The clash reportedly was going at the Lugansk suburbs.

Yesterday, Ukrainian military confirmed its loses at the fight at the Mariupol sector. According to the report, 19 militants were killed and 30 injured during their attempt to advacne to the DPR territory.

.

The hysterical campaign launched against the Iran nuclear deal by the flag-waving militarist partisans in and around the US congress has terribly obfuscated the issues included in the deal. Not surprisingly, the campaign has created a number of misconceptions regarding both the actual contents of the deal and the main disagreements between the advocates and opponents of the deal.

One such misconception is that the deal is, or must be, more advantageous to Iran than the US and Israel; otherwise, the simple logic goes, there would not be so much opposition to it. Such impressions, created simply by all the hue and cry on the part of the opponents of the deal are patently false. Even a cursory reading of the nuclear agreement reveals that, as I pointed out in a recent article on the issue, it is highly skewed against Iran. Not only does the agreement downgrade and freeze Iran’s peaceful nuclear technology, it also limit the scope of the county’s scientific research and development, jeopardize its national security or defense capabilities and, perhaps most importantly, undermine its national sovereignty.

So, considering the fact the deal represents a big win for the US and its allies and, by the same token, a major loss for Iran, why all the uproar against it?

A number of reasons can be thought of for all the war party’s feverish hullabaloo. The main reason, however, seems to be that while the deal obviously represents a fantastic victory for the US and  its allies, it nonetheless falls short of what the war party projected and fought for, that is, devastating regime change by military means, similar to what was done to Iraq and Libya.

The second misconception that the war party’s vehement opposition to the nuclear deal has created is that their ultimate goal vis-à-vis Iran is significantly different from that of the Obama administration and other proponents of the deal. In reality, however, the difference between the opponents and proponents of the deal is largely tactical; strategically, both factions pursue the same objective: regime change in Iran.

While the advocates of the deal have in recent years switched their tactics from direct military intervention and regime change from without to soft-power methods of regime change from within, the opponents of the deal continue to insist that overwhelming military force and escalating economic strangulation are the more effective means of regime change in Tehran, that is, regime change from outside.

This does not mean that the advocates of the nuclear deal have ruled out the military option altogether—by no means. As President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other administration officials have frequently pointed out, the military option is on the table when/if needed, that is, if Iran fails to carry out all the punishing obligations under the nuclear deal.

The tactical switch by the proponents of the deal from military to soft-power methods of regime change did not come about overnight, or by an epiphany. For over thirty years since the 1979 revolution in Iran, which significantly undermined the U.S. influence in that country and elsewhere in the region, these proponents, like their counterparts in the war party, pursued policies of regime change from outside. These included instigation of and support for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, training and supporting destabilizing terrorist organizations to attack Iran from all corners of the country, constant war and military threats, efforts to sabotage the 2009 presidential election through the so-called “green revolution,” and systematic escalation of economic sanctions.

Not only did these evil schemes fell short of their nefarious goal of “regime change” in Iran, they in fact drove the country to become a major power in the region.

In the face of the brutal economic sanctions and constant military threats, Iran embarked on a relatively radical path of a public/state-guided economy that successfully provided both for the war mobilization to defend its territorial integrity and for respectable living conditions of its population. By taking control of the commanding heights of the national economy, and effectively utilizing the revolutionary energy and dedication of their people, Iranian policy makers at the time also succeeded in taking significant steps toward economic self-reliance, which further thwarted the geopolitical plans of the US and its allies to bring Iran to its knees, or to overthrow its government.

Having thus failed at its plots of “regime change” from without, a major faction of the US ruling class, headed by the Obama administration, now seems to have opted for regime change (or reform) from within; that is, through political and economic rapprochement with Iran—using the nuclear negotiations as a starting point, or transitional channel.

What has made this option more promising in recent years is the rise of well-organized, Western-oriented neoliberal capitalist class in Iran whose chief priority seems to be the ability to do business with their counterparts in the West.

Many of the once revolutionary leaders who successfully managed the 1980-88 war economy have now become business entrepreneurs and prosperous capitalists. Having effectively enriched themselves in the shadow of the public sector economy, these folks are now ready to do business American style, that is, follow the neoliberal/austerity model of economics.

It is thus understandable why major factions within Iran’s ruling circles, represented largely by the Rouhani administration, have no stomach for a regimented, war-like economy; and why they support the highly disgraceful compromises made by Iran’s nuclear negotiators to the United States and its allies. For the rich and powerful elites of these circles issues such as nuclear technology or national sovereignty are of secondary importance to self-enrichment, or profit motive.

It follows that the Obama administration and other US advocates of the nuclear deal opted for negotiation with Iran only after they came to the realization that (a) continuing on the path of regime change from outside tended to be ineffective, or even counterproductive, and (b) the rise of a pro-US, collaborationist capitalist class in Iran increasingly promised to be a more effective vehicle of spreading the US influence in Iran and, ultimately, of regime change from within.

Indeed, the Obama administration’s recent approach of relying primarily on business/market forces of regime change, or modification, without ruling out the military option is likely to be more effective in achieving its goal than the war party’s reckless insistence on escalating sanctions and military threats.

The effectiveness of this approach lies in the fact that, as pointed out earlier, the nuclear deal would significantly limit Iran’s military and defense capabilities. The deal would also avail the US extensive knowledge of Iran’s economic, technological, security, and military capabilities and, therefore, vulnerabilities. This means that if at any time in the future Iran defies or resists the heavy-handed imperialistic designs of the United States, the US can then employ its war machine more effectively as it would have the necessary information on strategic places or targets to be attacked or bombarded.

This is no speculation or conspiracy theory. It is, indeed, a scenario projected by the Obama administration officials and other advocates of the nuclear deal as they promote it ahead of the next month’s critical vote in Congress. “In meetings on Capitol Hill and with influential policy analysts, administration officials argue that inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities under the deal will reveal important details that can be used for better targeting should the U.S. decide to attack Iran” [1].

Commenting on this ominous depraved scheme, Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Told Michael Crowley of the Politico, “It’s certainly an argument I’ve heard made. . . . We’ll be better off with the agreement were we to need to use force” [2].

To see how this menacing projection is not simply an abstract or partisan argument, suffice it to remember the fact that this is exactly what was done to Iraq and Libya. In both cases, the United States and its allies used disingenuous negotiations with Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Qaddafi as pretexts to collect information about their military/defense capabilities and, then, used the information thus acquired for targeted bombardment and effective invasion.

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis (Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

References

[1] Michael Crowley, The ultimate argument in favor of the Iran deal: The agreement would make it easier to bomb Iran, administration officials have told lawmakers.

[2] Ibid.

 

Appointed on 27 August by Greece’s President, Prokopis Pavlópulos, Ms. Vassiliki Thanou-Christophilou, President of the Supreme Court and mother of three, was sworn in on Thursday 28, August, 2015 as interim Prime Minister. She also served as President of the Electoral Court which oversees and examines the validity of parliamentary elections and referenda – including the legitimacy and strength of the 5 July referendum against more imposed austerity.

Ms. Vassiliki Thanou will be in charge of forming a caretaker Government which she announced on Friday, 28 August. She is also responsible for preparing and overseeing the new elections, now scheduled for 20 September 2015.

As a fierce opponent of the troika imposed austerity, Ms. Thanou may be the new spark of hope for Greece’s future. She has openly opposed dictated wage cuts and an illegal property tax, introduced with the first bail-out package in 2012. The tax has already put many small entrepreneurs out of business and threatens more to follow, especially in Greece’s current economic downturn.

According to Reuters, Ms. Thanou wrote to the European Commission in July 2015,

“The wrong economic policy which was implemented in the past five years, in line with the bailouts that were imposed by the (lenders) and failed, have led to a deeper recession, unemployment and the impoverishment of most of the Greek people,”

In February this year she called on Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the EC, to help the “Greek people regain their dignity”. To no avail, as we know. Ms. Thanou clearly portrays a personality that is not scared of facing the monster in Brussels. And this is precisely what Greece needs in these coming months and years – projected time for recovery of national sovereignty, social justice and economic prosperity.

The field is open for the next three weeks until elections. Options for new opportunities and coalitions abound. According to the latest polls, Mr. Tsipras, as head of the Syriza party, with 23% remains the frontrunner for the next PM. This may mean two things:

(1) The Greek people are still not aware of what the new and enhanced austerity plus the new debt will mean for their future, for the future of their children and children’s children;

> increasing total debt to over 430 billion euros (including the € 86 billion to be contracted under the new bailout package), growing rapidly with compounded interests, a debt ratio to GDP of more than 180% (GDP € 238billion / 2014);
> debt of which not one euro will flow into Greece to revamp her economy and reestablish the looted social system;
> austerity conditions that will be further devastating what’s left of the Greek social system, increasing unemployment (currently above 26%, and about 60% for young people);
> more privatization of public assets, like selling off Greece’ s most profitable airports to a German company that is prepared to pay fire-sale prices;
> selling off up to hundreds of Greece’s pristine islands; or

(2) The people of Greece prefer to remain hostage to Mr. Tsipras smile, pep-talk and charisma – and to Madame Merkel. – But be sure – Mr. Tsipras personality and attitude towards more debt and more austerity will not change, nor will that of Angela Merkel.

Why would Ms. Thanou not run for Prime Minister herself on 20 September, for example in affiliation with the new Unity Party, seeking a wider coalition with other leftwing parties? – And become the first ever elected female Prime Minister of Greece – a new face on the Greek horizon; a person reflecting integrity and who seems to understand the plight of the majority of the Greek people, a person not afraid of confronting Greece’s creditors.

Having been on top of the Greek judiciary, Ms. Thanou knows that Mr. Tsipras’ actions against a 62 % majority of NO votes was anti-constitutional and can be undone by the Supreme Court. Ms. Thanou also is conscious that contracts – in this case contracts for debt – concluded under duress, coercion and corruption are illegal and won’t hold up in any international court of law. All but about € 50 billion of Greeks current external debt were ‘acquired’ under such fraudulent conditions, plus blackmail – the pressure ‘you accept our conditions, or we will force you out of the Eurozone, and possible even out of the EU’. – This is illegal. Hence, virtually the entire Greek debt could be legally erased and declared null.

Although, information on the subject is contradictory, it appears that still a majority of Greek people would like to remain in the Eurozone. From recent travels through Greece, I understand it is mostly a matter of ‘prestige’ and ‘belonging to the West’. – What prestige? – What West?  – The connection between fiat money, debt and becoming colonized by an internationally failing currency and it’s the predatory masters of the West in Brussels, Germany and Washington is not made.

Much like the US dollar, the Euro is being produced electronically as debt. In the US if the FED (Federal Reserve or Central Bank, never mind its full private ownership) needs fresh money, to finance, say, a new Washington invasion, a new war or conflict towards ‘regime change, it produces a federal debt, called QE (Quantitative Easing). This is unviable debt held as reserve currency by treasuries around the world, losing with every new dollar being produced some of its value. According to Alan Greenspan’s (former FED Chairman) own admission, “The United States can pay any debt it has, because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default;” – But there is a gradual devaluation of the dollar and the foreign countries dollar reserves.

This is not quite the case in Europe, where the European Central Bank is not really a central bank, but a watchdog loosely controlling Eurozone countries’ management of debt, but mostly working for TBTF (too-big-to-fail) banksters, Wall Street and their associates in Europe. In the US as in Europe, new cash is generated since the 1990’s Clinton era by fully deregulated private banks dishing out debt, including, for example, to countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal — you name it. In fact to any country which still has a social system that can be plundered. So – France may be one of the next candidates.

Western banks are all ‘globalized’. There is not much Germany left in ‘Deutsche Bank’. But they all benefit from borrowing practically unlimited sums from their respective central banks at zero or almost zero interest and onlend the funds to, say, Greece at between 5% and 7% – with the pretext that Greece is a high-risk case, well aware that risks are covered by risk insurers and eventually by ‘bail-ins’ or ‘haircuts’. The interest difference is sheer profit.

Effective since August this year the unelected EC has issued an edict that spares tax-payers from saving banks which over-stretched and over-speculated themselves into bankruptcy. Instead, the new system allows such banks to refinance themselves by virtually stealing the money from their depositors and shareholders, the so-called ‘bail-ins’. The masters of finance make sure this new rule – illegal by any traditional international standard – is hardly known to the public, lest a run on the banks might become imminent.

The Euro itself is since its inception a highly vulnerable currency. It is almost a miracle that it lasted for 15 years. The imposition of a common currency on a set of nations, most of which have hardly anything in common, other than the Washington imposed NATO, is an economic absurdity. Such a shared currency based on a relatively loose association of independent countries – the EU – with no common constitution, let alone a joint political agenda and which are consequently devoid of solidarity that would emanate naturally from an entity of federal states – was a misconception from the start. Here lies the huge difference between the US dollar and the Euro. Even though the over-indebted dollar is hardly worth the paper it’s printed on, it is still the common currency of the federal United States of America which has a common Constitution. The EU has no Constitution. There is only the neoliberal Maastricht Treaty which has no legal binding on any of the EU states. The euro is not sustainable, an analysis expressed by many international financial experts.

A future Greek Government may think twice whether it is a good idea to adhere to a failing and faltering currency, thereby remaining hostage to the predatory EU, led by Germany – instead of reclaiming her political sovereignty and economic autonomy. The new PM would also be well-advised, whatever decision she or he may take, to make sure it is backed by a Plan B.

There is much to be gained from a new start, with a newly restructured Greek central bank and a public banking system that works actually for the Greek people, the Greek economy, rather than for faraway shareholders and insane boni of anonymous CEOs of nontransparent Wall Street and European financial conglomerates. Ms. Vassiliki Thanou, with her legal and institutional know-how, her female approach to Brussels infamous male arrogance, might just be one of the best-suited candidates to lead Greece out of her quagmire.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik News, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance

 

In the lead-up to COP21, a hundred French and international personalities are signing an appeal on Mediapart, entitled :

 “Let’s leave the fossil fuels in the ground. That’s how to put an end to climate crimes”.

And we, simple citizens, are invited to sign too. One would like to be able to sign, but alas, the text is not suitable : not because of what it says, which is generally true, but because of what it doesn’t say and which immediately casts great doubt on the rest. For to say half a truth and omit the other half is not truth-telling.

This appeal says rightly that we must take now the urgent measures that will – perhaps – put a stop to global warming and climate disruption in time to prevent the planet from becoming uninhabitable, and that failure will amount to « ecocide… doing violence to all living beings, ecosystems and societies, and threatening the rights of future generations ». But to continue the production and consumption of nuclear energy, what is that if not an « ecocide… doing violence to all living beings, ecosystems and societies, and threatening the rights of future generations » ? Failure to say a word about this is not at all insignificant. It amounts to tacit preference for one ecocide over another, denouncing the first and accepting the second. Even if that is not being done deliberately.

The appeal actually declares : « We know that multinationals and governments will not easily abandon the profits they draw from extracting reserves of coal, gas and oil or from globalised industrial agriculture greedy for fossil energy ». According to this appeal, there are therefore three sources of fossil fuel to be banned : coal, gas and oil. A more prudent appeal, that of the NGOs issued last June on Mediapart, expressed a wish to « ban all new projects involving polluting energies and thus guarantee that access to clean inexpensive and secure energy becomes a public good», without citing any particular energy source, but in fact excluding nuclear energy, which is not clean or inexpensive or secure. Why then, in this new personalities’ appeal, is not uranium extraction cited among the « reserves » from which certain multinationals (AREVA for example) and certain governments (such as France) seek – with greater or lesser success, admittedly – to « draw profits from» ?

Is that because they view uranium as a mineral and not a « fossil fuel » ? Is it just a semantic concern, a mere question of definition ?

Let’s look closer. What do we describe as « fossil » ? The Larousse online dictionary says : « things in the state of fossils ». Enlightening, eh ? But fossils ? There it says « debris or print of a plant or animal buried in rocky strata before the current geological period and conserved there». That definition is unchanged since the printed Larousse Encyclopedia (1962, vol. 5).

Coal, gas and oil do not bear the print of plants and animals, and they cannot be called « debris » either, even if they derive from plants. Obviously that’s not what makes people call them « fossil ». So in what other sense ?

Simply the first sense of the word « fossil », if we refer this time to the “Online Dictionary” (and also to “Reverso”) : « what is extracted or sourced from inside the earth ». This meaning matches the etymology indicated by Larousse : « from the latin fossilis, drawn out of the earth. »

So the « fossil fuels » are called « fossil » not because they result from the decomposition of plants, but because they are produced from materials extracted from the ground – where they exist in limited quantities« unlike renewable energies » as the online Larousse puts it. This is a definition that fits nuclear energy, so long as it depends on the extraction and treatment of uranium ore. The fact that the « natural uranium » in the ore is then enriched (into Uranium 235), whereas crude oil is refined, makes no difference. We must therefore say once and for all, to stop the cunning tricks of the nucleocrats : nuclear energy is not only fissile, it is also fossil. It forms part of the fossil energies, drawn out of the ground and exhaustible. It should be named every time anyone lists the « fossil energies».

Having solved this question of vocabulary, how can we explain the favorable treatment given to nuclear energy ? It is certainly a favor to omit it from listings of the « fossil energies » being pilloried for their nasty effects on climate.

Here too, we must point to the clever propaganda of the nucleocrats, who are even rash enough to claim that « nuclear energy is good for the climate». In reality, nuclear energy, viewed merely from the perspective of climate, shares all the defects of the other fossil fuels.

It is non-renewable, as we have just said. At the current rate of extraction and consumption, the known reserves of uranium will be exhausted roughly as soon as the reserves of crude oil, maybe before. And the collapse would occur even sooner if the number of nuclear power-plants grows through the proliferating actions of the nucleocrats.

The growing rarity of its fuel means that nuclear energy will merely compound the « oil wars » by creating « uranium wars », which have already started in Africa, notably in the form of terrorism.

Nuclear energy exploits the countries of extraction (for example AREVA in Niger). maintaining a neocolonial system and endangering the health of the local populations.

It pollutes even more seriously than the other fossil energies do. The inhabitants of Pripiat and Fukushima, the 600 000 liquidators of Chernobyl (or their survivors), the thousands of cancer victims, non-smoking and not exposed to pesticides, the victims of nuclear tests after those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to mention only the best-known victims – all those people can testify to that.

Finally and above all, nuclear energy contributes also to global warming :

 directly, by heating the atmosphere through the plumes of steam that rise continuously from the « cooling towers » which are indeed « climate warming towers », and by putting into waterways or the ocean its cooling water which heats the climate ;
 indirectly, by using other fossil energies that produce greenhouse gases, in all the activities involved in the building and fuelling the plants, all the way from the mine to the « treatment » plant.

These are common faults of fossil energies, to which nuclear energy adds at least three of its own :

 Its effects are, like radioactivity, invisible, inaudible, odourless, tasteless, in short, undetectible except by special devices, and therefore much harder to avoid… and harder to inculpate after they have affected people’s health (as was learnt bitterly by the civilian and military victims of France’s nuclear tests) ;

 Its deadly effects are almost eternal (half-life of plutonium : 240 000 years ; half-life of uranium 238 : 4,5 billion years), which means that the radioactive pollution adding to that of greenhouse gases is impossible to pin down in space and also in time ;

– last but not least, its fuel is usable and is indeed used to make weapons of mass destruction (16 000 currently in existence), which permanently threaten to explode the planet.

All the same, let’s recognise one advantage that nuclear has over the other fossil energies : although the particular ecocide it causes is more insidious than climate ecocide, the wholesale death that it threatens us with will be much more brutal than that of global warming.

Whether by multiplying Chernobyls and Fukushimas (in France most likely), nuclear energy will save us from having to combat climatic ecocide, since there will be very few people left to suffer from it.

But that should not stop us from thinking and saying out loud that no, no, no, to propagate nuclear cholera is not the way to treat the climate plague.

The signatories of the Appeal « Let’s leave the fossil fuels in the ground. That’s how to put an end to climate crimes» would be well advised to say so too. By publishing, why not, an extra codicil to their appeal.

Jean-Marie Matagne
President of ACDN (Action des Citoyens pour le Désarmement Nucléaire)
Acteur (de base) d’Alternatiba

Today’s selected articles brought to you by Global Research focus on the impacts of state sponsored social and financial engineering: law enforcement, urban transformation, the control  and manipulation of the news chain,  the demise of pension funds, the abolition of cash.  

SELECTED ARTICLES

First US State Approves Drones with Rubber Bullets, Tasers, Pepper Spray, Tear Gas, Sound Cannons for Domestic Use

By Robert Barsocchini, August 28, 2015

Looting Made Easy: the $2 Trillion Buyback Binge

By Mike Whitney, August 28, 2015

The Financial Times has published an anonymous article which calls for the abolition of cash in order to give central banks and governments more power.

Entitled The case for retiring another ‘barbarous relic’, the article laments the fact that people are stockpiling cash in anticipation of another economic collapse, a factor which is causing, “a lot of distortion to the economic system.”

“The existence of cash — a bearer instrument with a zero interest rate — limits central banks’ ability to stimulate a depressed economy. The worry is that people will change their deposits for cash if a central bank moves rates into negative territory,” states the article.

Complaining that cash cannot be tracked and traced, the writer argues that its abolition would, “make life easier for a government set on squeezing the informal economy out of existence.”

Abolishing cash would also give governments more power to lift taxes directly from people’s bank accounts, the author argues, noting how “Value added tax, for example, could be automatically levied — and reimbursed — in real time on transactions between liable bank accounts.”

The writer also calls for punishing people who use cash by making users “pay for the privilege of anonymity” so they will, “remain affected by monetary policy.” Dated bank notes would lose their value over time, while people would also be charged by banks for swapping electronic reserves for physical cash and vice versa.

The article echoes an argument made by Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, who has called for high denomination banks notes such as the €100 and €500 notes to be phased out of existence.

As we previously reported, Rogoff attended a meeting in London earlier this year where he met representatives from the Federal Reserve, the ECB as well as participants from the Swiss and Danish central banks. The issue of banning cash was at the forefront of the agenda.

Last year, Rogoff also called for “abolishing physical currency” in order to stop “tax evasion and illegal activity” as well as preventing people from withdrawing money when interest rates are close to zero.

The agenda to ban cash was also discussed at this year’s secretive Bilderberg Group meeting, which wasattended by the Financial Times’ chief economics commentator Martin Wolf.

Former Bank of England economist Jim Leaviss penned an article for the London Telegraph earlier this year in which he said a cashless society would only be achieved by “forcing everyone to spend only by electronic means from an account held at a government-run bank,” which would be, “monitored, or even directly controlled by the government.”

In the UK, banks are treating the withdrawal of cash in amounts as low as £5,000 as a suspicious activity, while in France, citizens will be banned from making cash payments over €1,000 euros from Tuesday onwards. The withdrawal and deposit of cash over the amount of €1,000 euros will also be subject to ID verification.

“There is no more egregious anti-liberty economic policy imaginable than banning cash,” writes Michael Krieger.

“Of course, if cash were involuntarily “ended,” there would be a surge in demand for physical gold and silver, which would then necessitate a ban on those items. Then the cycle of economic and financial tyranny would be complete, and crawling our way out of it, nearly impossible.”

Subscribe to Paul Joseph Watson’s Youtube page:

https://www.youtube.com/user/PrisonPlanetLive

The US repeatedly asked Norway to detain and deport whistleblower Edward Snowden if he tried to enter its territory in the aftermath of his leaks on mass US global surveillance, Norwegian media revealed citing formal requests.

Protegidos pelo blecaute político-midiático, estão descendo na Europa enxames de paraquedistas em pé de guerra. Trata-se da “Swift Response” (Resposta Rápida), “o maior exercício militar da Otan de forças aerotransportadas, cerca de cinco mil homens, desde o fim da guerra fria”.

Realiza-se de 17 de agosto a 13 de setembro na Itália, Alemanha, Bulgária e Romênia, com a participação também de tropas estadunidenses, britânicas, francesas, gregas, holandesas, polonesas, espanholas e portuguesas. Naturalmente, confirma um comunicado oficial, sob a “direção do exército dos Estados Unidos”.

Para a “Resposta Rápida”, o exército dos Estados Unidos” emprega, pela primeira vez na Europa depois da guerra contra a Iugoslávia em 1999, a 82ª Divisão aerotransportada, incluindo a 173ª Brigada baseada em Vicenza (Itália). A mesma que treina desde abril, na Ucrânia, os batalhões da guarda nacional de clara composição neonazista, subordinada ao Ministério do Interior e que agora, depois de um exercício com fogo realizado na Ucrânia em seis de agosto, começa a treinar também as forças armadas “regulares” de Kíev”.

A “Swift Response” foi precedida em agosto pelo exercício militar bilateral EUA-Lituânia “Uhlan Fury”, acompanhado por um semelhante na Polônia e pela denominada “Allied Spirit”, realizado na Alemanha, sempre sob o comando estadunidense, com a participação de tropas italianas, georgianas e até mesmo sérvias. E, pouco depois da “Swift Response”, se desenvolverá de três de outubro a seis de novembro uma das maiores manobras militares da Otan, a “Trident Juncture 2015”, que mobilizará sobretudo na Itália, Espanha e em Portugal forças armadas de mais de 30 países aliados e parceiros, com 36 mil homens, mais de 60 navios e 10 aviões.

Quem explica o escopo dessas manobras militares da Otan sob o comando dos Estados Unidos, que se desenvolvem doravante sem interrupção na Europa, é o novo chefe do estado maior do exército dos Estados Unidos, o general Mark Mil­ley. Depois de ter definido a Rússia como uma “ameaça existencial porque é o único país do mundo com uma capacidade nuclear no nível de destruir os Estados Unidos” (audiência no Senado em 21 de julho), no seu discurso de posse (14 de agosto) declarou: “A guerra, o ato político com o qual uma parte tenta impor a sua vontade a outra, se decide sobre um terreno em que as pessoas vivem. E é sobre esse terreno que o exército dos Estados Unidos, o mais bem armado e treinado do mundo, não deve jamais fracassar”. O “terreno” de onde são lançadas as operações dos Estados Unidos e da Otan para o Leste e o Sul, mais uma vez, é o europeu. No sentido não apenas militar, mas também político.

É emblemático o fato de que a UniãoEuropeia como tal participa da “Trident Juncture 2015” (com um silêncio político geral). Não é de espantar, uma vez que 22 dos 28 países da União Europeia são membros da Otan e o artigo 42 do Tratado sobre a União Europeia reconhece o seu direito de realizar “a defesa comum por meio da Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte”, que (sublinha o protocolo número 10) “continua sendo o fundamento da defesa coletiva da União Europeia”.

A Otan – cujo comandante supremo aliado na Europa é sempre nomeado pelo presidente dos Estados Unidos e cujas demais posições de mando estão nas mãos dos Estados Unidos – serve para manter a União Europeia na esfera de influência estadunidense. As oligarquias europeias tiram vantagem disto, pois em troca da “fidelidade atlântica” de seus países participam na divisão dos lucros e áreas de influência com as estadunidenses. Enquanto isso, os povos europeus são arrastados a uma perigosa e custosa nova guerra fria contra a Rússia e a situações críticas, como a do dramático êxodo de fugitivos provocado pelas guerras dos Estados Unidos e da Otan na Líbia e na Síria.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Fonte:  http://ilmanifesto.info/quei-para-sulle-nostre-teste/

Traduzido do italiano por José Reinaldo Carvalho, para o Blog da Resistência

*Manlio Dinucci é jornalista, geógrafo e cientista político. Escreve regularmente no jornal italiano Il Manifesto

Coperti dal blac­kout politico/mediatico, stanno scen­dendo in Europa nugoli di para­ca­du­ti­sti in pieno assetto di guerra. È la «Swift Response» (Rispo­sta rapida), «la più grande eser­ci­ta­zione Nato di forze avio­tra­spor­tate, circa 5mila uomini, dalla fine della guerra fredda». Si svolge dal 17 ago­sto al 13 set­tem­bre in Ita­lia, Ger­ma­nia, Bul­ga­ria e Roma­nia, con la par­te­ci­pa­zione anche di truppe sta­tu­ni­tensi, bri­tan­ni­che, fran­cesi, gre­che, olan­desi, polac­che, spa­gnole e por­to­ghesi. Natu­ral­mente, con­ferma un comu­ni­cato uffi­ciale, sotto «la dire­zione dello U.S. Army».

Per la «Rispo­sta rapida» lo U.S. Army impiega, per la prima volta in Europa dopo la guerra con­tro la Jugo­sla­via nel 1999, la 82a Divi­sione avio­tra­spor­tata, com­presa la 173a Bri­gata di stanza a Vicenza. Quella che adde­stra da aprile, in Ucraina, i bat­ta­glioni della Guar­dia nazio­nale di chiara com­po­si­zione neo­na­zi­sta, dipen­denti dal Mini­stero degli interni, e che ora, dopo una eser­ci­ta­zone a fuoco effet­tuata sem­pre in Ucraina il 6 ago­sto, ini­zia ad adde­strare anche le forze armate «rego­lari» di Kiev.

La «Swift Response» è stata pre­ce­duta in ago­sto dall’esercitazione bila­te­rale Usa/Lituania «Uhlan Fury», accom­pa­gnata da una ana­loga in Polo­nia, e dalla «Allied Spi­rit» svol­tasi in Ger­ma­nia, sem­pre sotto comando Usa, con la par­te­ci­pa­zione di truppe ita­liane, geor­giane e per­fino serbe. E, poco dopo la «Swift Response», si svol­gerà dal 3 otto­bre al 6 novem­bre una delle più grandi eser­ci­ta­zioni Nato, la «Tri­dent Junc­ture 2015», che vedrà impe­gnate soprat­tutto in Ita­lia, Spa­gna e Por­to­gallo forze armate di oltre 30 paesi alleati e part­ner, con 36 mila uomini, oltre 60 navi e 140 aerei.

Quale sia lo scopo di que­ste eser­ci­ta­zioni Nato sotto comando Usa, che si svol­gono ormai senza inter­ru­zione in Europa, lo spiega il nuovo capo di stato mag­giore dello U.S. Army, il gene­rale Mark Mil­ley. Dopo aver defi­nito la Rus­sia «una minac­cia esi­sten­ziale poi­ché è l’unico paese al mondo con una capa­cità nucleare in grado di distrug­gere gli Stati uniti» (audi­zione al Senato, 21 luglio), nel suo discorso di inse­dia­mento (14 ago­sto) dichiara: «La guerra, l’atto di poli­tica con cui una parte tenta di imporre la sua volontà all’altra, si decide sul ter­reno dove vive la gente. Ed è sul ter­reno che l’esercito degli Stati uniti, il meglio armato e adde­strato del mondo, non deve mai fal­lire». Il «ter­reno» da cui ven­gono lan­ciate le ope­ra­zioni Usa/Nato verso Est e verso Sud, ancora una volta, è quello euro­peo. In senso non solo mili­tare, ma politico.

Emble­ma­tico il fatto che alla «Tri­dent Junc­ture 2015» par­te­cipa (nel silen­zio poli­tico gene­rale) l’Unione euro­pea in quanto tale. Non c’è da stu­pir­sene, dato che 22 dei 28 paesi della Ue sono mem­bri della Nato e l’art. 42 del Trat­tato sull’Unione euro­pea rico­no­sce il loro diritto a rea­liz­zare «la difesa comune tra­mite l’Organizzazione del Trat­tato del Nord Atlan­tico», che (sot­to­li­nea il pro­to­collo n. 10) «resta il fon­da­mento della difesa col­let­tiva della Ue».

La Nato — in cui il Coman­dante supremo alleato in Europa è sem­pre nomi­nato dal pre­si­dente degli Stati uniti e sono in mano agli Usa gli altri comandi chiave — serve a man­te­nere la Ue nella sfera d’influenza sta­tu­ni­tense. Se ne avvan­tag­giano le oli­gar­chie euro­pee, che in cam­bio della «fedeltà atlan­tica» dei loro paesi par­te­ci­pano alla spar­ti­zione di pro­fitti e aree di influenza con quelle sta­tu­ni­tensi. Men­tre i popoli euro­pei sono tra­sci­nati in una peri­co­losa e costosa nuova guerra fredda con­tro la Rus­sia e in situa­zioni cri­ti­che, come quella del dram­ma­tico esodo di pro­fu­ghi pro­vo­cato dalle guerre Usa/Nato in Libia e Siria.

Manlio Dinucci

Corporations are taking the retirement savings of elderly public employees and using them to inflate their stock prices so wealthy CEOs and their shareholders can enrich themselves at the expense of their companies. And it’s all completely legal. Under current financial regulations, corporate bosses are free to repurchase their own company’s shares, push stock prices into the stratosphere, skim off a generous bonuses for themselves in the form of executive compensation, and leave their companies drowning in red ink.

Even worse, a sizable portion of the money devoted to stock buybacks is coming from  “massively underfunded public pension” funds that retired workers depend on for their survival. According to Brian Reynolds, Chief Market Strategist at New Albion Partners,  “Pension funds have to make 7.5%,” so they are putting their money “in these levered credit funds that mimic Long-Term Capital Management in the 1990s.” Those funds, in turn, “buy enormous amounts of corporate bonds from companies which put cash onto company balance sheets…and they use it to jack their stock price up, either through buybacks or mergers and acquisitions…It’s just a daisy chain of financial engineering and it’s probably going to intensify in coming years.”   (“How a Public Pension Crisis Is Driving an Epic Credit Boom“, Financial Sense)

So, once again, ordinary working people are caught in the crosshairs of a corporate scam that could blow up in their faces and leave them without sufficient resources to muddle through their retirement years.

The amount money that’s being funneled into buybacks is simply staggering. According to Dave Dayen at the Intercept:

“Last year, companies spent $553 billion to repurchase outstanding shares, just short of the record $589.1 billion in 2007. Large companies like Apple, General Motors, McDonald’s, Pfizer, Microsoft and more have engaged in buybacks in recent years.

Returning profits to shareholders through buybacks and dividends accounted for 95 percent of all earnings in 2014. As a result, each additional dollar of corporate earnings now translates to under 10 cents of reinvestment, according to a study by J.W. Mason of the Roosevelt Institute.”

(“SEC Admits It’s Not Monitoring Stock Buybacks to Prevent Market Manipulation“, Dave Dayen, Intercept)

This explains why business investment (Capex) is at record lows.  It’s because the bulk of earnings is being recycled into buybacks, over $2.3 trillion dollars since 2009 to be precise. And it’s all connected to the Fed’s zero rate policy.  Zero rates have created an environment in which corporations no longer look for ways to grow their businesses, expand operations, hire more employees or improve productivity.  Instead, they look for the quick fix, that is, load up on debt, buy more shares, goose the stock price, and walk away with a bundle.

It’s all about incentives. The Fed has created incentives that encourage financial engineering and stock manipulation as opposed to growth and productivity. And keep in mind that repurchasing shares is a form of margin buying, the same type of margin buying that triggered Stock Market Crash of 1929.

According to Dayen: “Prior to the Reagan era, executives avoided buybacks due to fears that they would be prosecuted for market manipulation. But under SEC Rule 10b-18, adopted in 1982, companies receive a “safe harbor” from market manipulation liability on stock buybacks if they adhere to four limitations.”

We won’t go over the regulations now because, as you can see,  they obviously don’t work or these corporations wouldn’t be $2 trillion in the hole. But it is interesting to note that, at one time,  policymakers saw how destructive buybacks were and were prepared to prosecute offenders for manipulation. I doubt that any of our regulators today would even dream of bringing a case against these corporate behemoths, after all, they pretty much own the whole show lock, stock and barrel.

The real danger of this buyback phenom, is that the corporations have piled on so much debt that any sharp decline in the market could push one or two of these giants into default.  That, in turn, could quickly take down other counterparties touching off another financial crisis.    So, the question regulators should be asking themselves,  is how much red ink are these corporations hiding on their balance sheets and what are the risks to the public if they’re unable to repay their debts.  According to Henry Blodget at Business Insider:

“As corporations have borrowed more and more money, the level of corporate debt relative to the size of the economy has continued to increase. As the chart below shows, this ratio is now at its highest level ever — even higher than it was in 2007, before the last debt-fueled economic implosion. Importantly, corporate net debt — the amount of debt that corporations are carrying minus the cash they have on hand (green line below) — is also at its highest level ever as a percent of the economy.”

(“Now It’s Time To Think About What Will Happen When Companies Stop Buying Back So Much Stock“, Business Insider)

Let’s summarize:

1. Buybacks are driving the stock market higher.

2. Corporations purchase buybacks with credit.

3. “The level of corporate debt relative to the size of the economy… is now at its highest level ever.”

What can we deduce from these three observations?

First, that stock prices are a bubble and, second, that a significant stock market shakeout could leave some of the nation’s biggest corporations teetering towards insolvency.

Of course, none of this is going to stop corporations from engaging in the same risky behavior. Heck, no.   In fact,  CEOs are actually looking for ways to speed up the buyback process. I’m not kidding. Check clip from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

“Companies are increasingly turning to accelerated share repurchase agreements…to return cash to shareholders and secure an immediate boost to per-share profits…..But these turbo-charged stock buybacks can backfire, especially when a steep market plunge—such as the 5.3% drop in the markets over the past two trading days. That’s because a steep plunge in stock prices can force the companies to potentially pay more to buy the shares through an ASR than what they would pay if they purchased the shares over time on the open market.
 
“Things can go wrong,” said Robert Leonard, head of specialty equity transactions at Citigroup Inc….
(“Accelerated Buybacks Less Favorable During Market Swoons“, Wall Street Journal)

You’re darn right, they can go wrong, but who gives a rip? Not America’s insatiable CEOs, that’s for sure. They’re just looking for faster ways to cash in, that’s all that matters to them. These guys aren’t even thinking about the health of their companies, let alone their customers. ‘Making widgets for the masses, is for suckers’, right?  Corporate honchos have bigger fish to fry, like leveraging up their whole operation to its eyeballs, skimming the cream off the top, stuffing the moolah in an unmarked Caymans account, and slipping out the backdoor before the whole rickety structure comes crashing to earth. That’s modern-day capitalism in a nutshell. Slash and burn, Baby, just like big boys at the Pentagon.

One last thing: Just to show the extent to which these corporate mandarins will go to enrich themselves at their company’s expense, check out this blurb from this 2014 article at Bloomberg:

“International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) is reducing stock buybacks after an $8.2 billion first-quarter splurge… IBM said last week it won’t sustain its rate of share repurchases in the first quarter, when buybacks more than tripled from a year earlier to the most since 2007. The company plans to spend less than $5.8 billion total in the final nine months of this year….
. 
 IBM’s sales have fallen from a year earlier for eight straight quarters…Declining sales and rising buybacks have squeezed IBM’s free cash flow…The repurchases, meanwhile, have taken a toll on IBM’s balance sheet. Total debt climbed to $44 billion in the first quarter, up from $33.4 billion a year ago….
 
 During the first quarter, IBM issued $4.5 billion of new bonds, clearly used to fund buybacks, Black said….
“The company tapped the bond market five different times last year, then you have a pretty sizable February issuance,” Black said in the interview. “I feel like there is investor fatigue on the name.” 
(“IBM End to Buyback Splurge Pressures CEO to Boost Revenue“, Bloomberg)

Okay, let’s translate this into English: IBM spent $8.2 billion in first-quarter on stock buybacks, even though “sales have dipped “from a year earlier for eight straight quarters”; even though “declining sales and rising buybacks have squeezed IBM’s free cash flow”; even though buybacks “have taken a toll on IBM’s balance sheet”; and even though “Total debt climbed to $44 billion in the first quarter, up from $33.4 billion a year ago.”

Unbelievable, right? And that’s not even the best part. The best part is the fact that “The company tapped the bond market five different times last year.”  In other words, they went to the bond market with ‘cup in hand’ and appealed to gullible investors to lend them more money to pay their lavish executive bonuses, to shower more dough on their worthless, do-nothing shareholders, and to keep this whole ridiculous farce going on a bit longer.

Talk about balls!

Tell me this, dear reader, when can we stop referring to this activity as “buybacks” and call it by its real name; looting?

On Tuesday evening, we asked what would happen if emerging markets joined China in dumping US Treasurys. For months we’ve documented the PBoC’s liquidation of its vast stack of US paper.

Back in July for instance, we noted that China had dumped a record $143 billion in US Treasurys in three months via Belgium, leaving Goldman speechless for once. 

Approximately 4,500 people, many civilians, have been killed in Yemen since the Saudi-led coalition began bombing 150 days ago, according to the UN. 23,000 more have been wounded.  [GR Editor’s note, the UN figures presented in this article tend to underestimate the number of civilian casualties]