Qual é a verdadeira ameaça nuclear no Médio Oriente?

January 7th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

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

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

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

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

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

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Qual è la vera minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente

il manifesto, 7 de Janeiro 2020

Tradutora : Luisa Vasconcellos

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

Qual è la vera minaccia nucleare in Medio Oriente

January 7th, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

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

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

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

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

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

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 7 gennaio 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Extrajudicial Assassinations

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Response: More Troops to the Middle East

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This convoy entered Iraq in June 2014.

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

Without an understanding of military issues, common sense prevails. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Troop Withdrawal: Yankee Go Home (2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are US military planners desperate?

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Statista 

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

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

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

Turkey’s Incirlik Air Force Base 

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

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

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

America’s Conventional Warfare Capabilities

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

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

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

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

The Nuclear Option against Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

Don’t Militarize the Heavens

January 7th, 2020 by Prof. Karl Grossman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War in space would be calamitous.

*

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

This article was originally published on Newsday.

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

Featured image is from Windover Way Photography

Putin’s Hour Is at Hand

January 6th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Global Research: Powered by Readers

January 6th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

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

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

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

Click to view our membership plans


Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Thank you for keeping independent media alive!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Background

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

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

Khaleeji Interventions in Post- Soviet Somalia. 1991-2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Notes

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

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

3)  Ibid

4)  Ibid

5)  Ibid

6)  Ibid

7)  Ibid

8)  Ibid

9)  Ibid

10) Ibid

11) Ibid

12) Ibid

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

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

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

16) Ibid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

WNdqZokw.jpg-medium

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

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

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

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

ENYCrpXW4AIJnwp

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

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

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

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

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

ENXcnTkWwAEzOBg

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

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

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

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

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 5, 2020

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Lucas Koerner reporting from Caracas and Ricardo Vaz from Mérida.

Featured image is from France 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rouhani Warns US Made ‘Grave Mistake by Killing Soleimani

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

When asked by one of Soleimani’s daughters who will avenge her father’s blood, Rouhani said that “everyone will take revenge” and that the daughter should not worry about it.

“The Americans did not realise what a grave mistake they have made. They will suffer the consequences of such criminal measure not only today, but also throughout the years to come.’ This crime committed by the US will go down in history as one of their unforgettable crimes against the Iranian nation,” Rouhani underscored.

35 US Targets ‘Within Iran’s Reach’, IRGC Commander Claims

IRGC Commander Gholamali Abuhamzeh, for his part, claimed that 35 American targets are already “within Iran’s reach”, in a statement that was followed by US President Donald Trump warning that any possible attack against US citizens or assets would be reciprocated with a counterattack against “52 Iranian sites.”

He referred to the sites which represent the 52 American hostages taken at the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Although they were finally released, the developments led to escalation of US-Iranian tensions at the time and Washington slapping sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

In one of the latest tweets, Trump warned that “if Iran attacks an American base, or any American”, the US will send “some of its brand new beautiful [military] equipment their way…and without hesitation”.

US-Iran Tensions Escalate

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have been worsening since January 3, when Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike on Baghdad International Airport that was authorised by Trump.

Iranian authorities were quick to vow “crushing vengeance” on Washington for killing the country’s top military commander who was described by Trump as the “number one terrorist anywhere in the world.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in turn, slammed Soleimani’s killing as an “extremely dangerous, foolish escalation” and an act of “international terrorism”.

*

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

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Nuclear Sub ‘In Position to Strike Iran’ Amid Tensions over Soleimani’s Killing
  • Tags: ,

Rescuing World War II History

January 6th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The American Free Press has published a book by John Wear titled Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath & Atrocities of World War II. The book is a compendium of WW II revisionist history. Wear pulls together work of Harry Elmer Barnes, James Bacque, Viktor Suvorov, David Hoggan, David Irving, and others to deliver a picture of WWII very different from the standard view that is familiar to all of us.

This is a courageous undertaking as Hitler and the Third Reich are respectively the most demonized leader and government in history. Adjusting the familiar story in the interest of a more truthful history opens John Wear to charges of being a Nazi sympathizer. Powerful Jewish lobbies also have vested interests in defending the official story, and those who trespass upon it are designated anti-semites and holocaust deniers.

To review a book that itself is a review of extensive historical research is beyond my capability. I have secured permission from the American Free Press to post Wear’s book chapter by chapter. You will see that there is a different story from the one taught to us. You make of it what you will.

My reason for posting Wear’s chapters is that of all of the many articles I posted in 2019 on a large variety of subjects of intense interest, the ones most read were about World War II. My article, “Germany Did Not Start World War II,” was the most widely read. My article, “The Lies About World War II,” was the second most widely read. My article, “The Truth About World War II Is Beginning To Emerge 74 Years Later,” was the fourth most widely read. That three of the four most widely read articles of the 834 postings this year on this website as of December 28 are about WW II indicates great interest in understanding WWII.

The carefully controlled explanation of World War II has shaped post-war history as much as any other force. If we are to be an aware people in charge of our destiny, we have to escape from controlled explanations even when the new explanation is unpalatable.

This is not to say that Wear is completely correct and the official story is completely incorrect. What is clearly wrong is the standard emphasis that Germany was the sole villain. Revisionist historians have made nonsense of this false claim.

It should not be surprising that the official history is problematic. It was written by the court historians of the victors for the purposes of making the court historians popular and successful by presenting the war as a great moral achievement. Unfortunately, this led to self-worship as Americans were declared to be the “The Greatest Generation” and then by the neconservatives to be the “exceptional, indispensable people.”

In the 21st century this view of ourselves has so far had two disastrous outcomes. One is the destruction in whole or part of seven Muslim countries. The other is the resurrection of the highly dangerous nuclear arms race and Cold War with Russia.

Truth is the best protection against destructive self-deception. Those who attempt to get at the truth should be respected rather than smeared and shouted down or locked away on false charges as Julian Assange and Manning are.

World War II, as far as I can tell, was the result of the ambitions of four men. Hitler wanted to put Germany, dismembered by the Versailles Treaty after WWI despite President Woodrow Wilson’s “guarantee” of no territorial losses, back together. Churchill wanted to use war and the threat of war to gain the Prime Minstership and to be a successful war leader like his ancestor the Duke of Marlborough. Roosevelt wanted England ruined by war so that Washington could take the world reserve currency role away from the British pound and control international finance. Stalin wanted to take advantage of a war torn Europe to add Eastern and Western Europe to his Communist empire.

Historians have not explained WWII in this way. In the official history, Hitler’s ambitions are misrepresented or overstated. The ambitions of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin are largely ignored. The revisionist historians are bringing these neglected ambitions into the story.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but only if it is an informed and considered opinion. Don’t be too hasty to arrive at an opinion until you have considered all aspects to the story. Keep in mind that fake news did not begin with the Democrats’ attack on Trump. It has always been a control mechanism that governments have used to coverup their crimes and to justify and build public support for their policies. War propaganda is the epitome of fake news.

Some years ago I wrote that if Hitler had not followed Napoleon into self-destruction by invading Russia, the Third Reich would still be standing. In order that the incompetents and trolls who denigrate truth-tellers on Wikipedia do not misrepresent me as a person who regrets Hitler’s demise, I will say that I am not lamenting Hitler’s demise, only acknowledging the folly of invading Russia, a folly that some of those who denigrate me wish to repeat.

A couple of readers corrected me about Hitler’s march into Russia. The German invasion of Russia was not a folly, they said. It saved Europe from Soviet conquest. The readers said that Hitler had no choice as Germany was faced with Soviet invasion. Their contention seemed implausible to me. I was influenced by standard history, such as Overy’s account that Hitler, frustrated by Britain’s refusal to negotiate peace, decided the reason was Britain’s hope that the Soviet Union would enter the war on the British side. Hitler decided to defeat the Soviet Union in order “to bring Britain to the negotiating table.” I attributed Hitler’s amazing initial success of his invasion of the Soviet Union to Stalin’s purge of the Soviet officer corps, leaving a leaderless army.

Not being a WWII history buff I was unfamiliar with Suvorov who has conclusively proven that Stalin was on the verge of a massive invasion of Germany and Western Europe with the most formidable army in history assembling on Germany’s border. As the Soviet army was being assembled in attack formation and not in defense in depth, caught offguard it was decimated. Suvorov says Hitler was aware of the impending Soviet attack and struck first. But David Irving reports that Hitler later said to his generals that if he had known of the massive size of the Soviet Army, its superior weapon systems, and its massive war production capability, he would not have attacked. I wait for historians to resolve whether Hitler’s attack was pre-emptive or a fortuitous event that saved Western Europe from Soviet conquest. Either way, the history of WWII is substantially different from the official history.

I have not read all of the revisionist historians or all of the standard histories. Nevertheless, I think I might be able to provide a brief indication of basic differences. Revisionist historians begin with Hitler’s aim of restoring the boundaries of Germany. Hitler’s aim was motivated less by territorial ambition than by the persecution, dispossession, and murder of German people under Polish and Czech rule. The pressure on Hitler, leader of a resurgent Germany, to protect Germans was intense.

Everywhere except Poland, Hitler suceeded in restoring Germany’s boundaries and in uniting with German Austria without war. Official history attributes Hitler’s success not to its inherrent rationality but to the cowardice of the British and French who appeased Hitler. British Prime Minister Chamberlain’s return from Munich with “peace in our time” has been much ridiculed by standard history. Revisionist historians see it differently. The British and French understood that the Versailles Treaty had been a mistake and to avoid war were willing to accept the reconstitution of Germany until it came to Poland. Here the British interferred in the negotiations between Hitler and the Polish military dictatorship by giving Poland a “guarantee” to come to Poland’s defense against Germany. This extraordinary act gave the Polish military dictatorship control over British war policy. This control was immediately used by breaking off negotiations with Germany. When Hitler attacked Poland, together with the Soviet Union, the British and French declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. The fact that the British caused WWII by giving Poland an unenforceable guarantee and by declaring war on Germany is the most neglected aspect of standard histories.

In standard histories the war is from start to finish Hitler’s War. Even Richard Overy’s sensible standard history, The Origins of the Second World War, begins with Hitler’s responsibility: “Without Hitler’s restless quest for empire, war might have been avoided.” In his quest for empire, Hitler “provoked” and “launched” World War II. Later in his book Overy repeats his claim: “The choice of war and grandiose imperialism was Hitler’s . . .”

Overy knows that revisionist historians have gained in credibility and acceptance. Overy is unwilling to stick with the traditional account with which he opens, but he knows he has to be careful in moving away from it. Having blamed Hitler’s restless quest for empire on his first page, Overy acknowledges on his second page British and French responsibility:

“It must not be forgotten that war in 1939 was declared by Britain and France on Germany and not the other way round. A large part of any explanation for the war that broke out in September 1939 must rest on this central point. Why did the two Western powers go to war with Germany? Immediately the question is put this way round, the role of Germany assumes a new and very different perspective.”

Overy makes an honest and reasonable attempt to explain WWII in terms of resource conflicts between the British and French empires on the one hand and the empire-desiring “have-not” countries of Germany, Italy and Japan on the other hand. Overy finds another cause of the war in the decline of the British and French empires. The impression that their power was fading made the British and French even more determined to assert their influence as predominant. The rise of nationalism is also an ingredient in Overy’s pot. His conclusion is:

“The cause of the Second World War was not just Hitler. The war was brought about by the interplay beween specific factors, of which Hitler was one, and the more general causes making for instability in the international system.

“These general causes can be traced back, as we have seen, to the strains placed on the diplomatic world in the late nineteenth century by the rise of nationalism, empire-building, and industrial power.”

In other words, Hitler was a catalyst that set off impersonal forces that were primed for war. The ambitions of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin are not in the picture. In this way Overy succeeds in adjusting standard history for some revisionist facts while protecting the victorious allies from accountability. In Overy’s index and bibliography, there are no references to Barnes, Bacque, Irving, Suvorov and other revisionists who have pushed Overy through four editions of his history to a more inclusive account of WWII. I don’t know the reason for the absence of revisionist references, but I suspect that Overy wishes to protect his incremental improvements to the history of WWII from charges of soft-on-Hitler revisionism.

Truth can only be arrived at, if at all, through free expression and fact-based open debate. Ruling entire subjects closed to investigation does not advance truth. In many countries doubting the Holocaust is illegal and lands a person in prison. According to reports I have read, the German government has apparently gone further and has made it illegal to doubt the official history of Germany’s sole guilt for WWII. With constraints like these, how can we know the truth? Moreover, such severe constraints on historical investigation make historians shy away from making any correction to historical accounts. All revisionism is suspect because it might move into forbidden territory and ruin the historian’s career.

Overy has maneuvered his way through this minefield carefully and has succeeded in moderating the one-sided history of German guilt. Perhaps in his fifth edition Overy will bring the guilt of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin into focus.

With this column serving as an introduction, John Wear’s book will appear chapter by chapter in the Guest section of my website. Not much of Wear’s book needs to be correct in order to substantially alter the history of the Second World War.

The first chapter of Wear’s book is here.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rescuing World War II History

On January 2, President Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian military commander, Major General Qassem Suleimani. This move comes in the wake of several other recent incidents that have risked sparking potential war and increased the risk of nuclear conflict.

Jeff Carter, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility, issued the following comment

“The United States can and must pursue critical diplomatic measures to prevent war with Iran. 

Physicians for Social Responsibility urges the Trump administration to consult with Congress before engaging in any further offensive attack anywhere in and around the Persian Gulf, and to re-enter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). An armed conflict between the United States and Iran would likely be a humanitarian catastrophe. 

What’s more, the assassination of Suleimani has brought the world closer to a nuclear conflict, for two reasons:

First, this escalation of hostilities could be interpreted as a declaration of war. War is full of uncertainty, and could draw in others besides the U.S. and Iran, including nuclear-armed countries such as Israel and Russia. 

Second, in 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, an agreement that was working as planned to effectively and verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The assassination of Suleimani will likely bolster the arguments of those in Iran who advocate for Iran to work harder and faster to obtain them.”

*

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

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

“As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States has the ability at any time to discuss threats against it. It has chosen not to do this, instead using almost-certainly illegal force against another U.N. member country. The consequences will be grave.”

***

An attorney who sued George W. Bush over the 2003 invasion of Iraq said Saturday that the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on orders from President Donald Trump constitutes an “act of aggression” and a violation of international law.

Dave Inder Comar, executive director of the non-profit human rights law firm Just Atonement Inc., argued in a Common Dreams op-ed Saturday that the Trump administration’s attempt to justify the drone strike on Soleimani as a legal “defensive action” does not comport with the facts.

“The United States most likely committed an act of aggression against Iran and killed Soleimani in violation of human rights law,” Comar wrote.

Comar argued the U.S. assassination of Soleimani fits two distinct International Criminal Court (ICC) definitions of “aggression.”

There are two important ICC definitions of aggression that are relevant here. First, an act of aggression can be, “an attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State”—in other words, attacking another state’s military. The killing of Soleimani would seem to fall under this definition, as he was a high-ranking military official in Iran…

The second important definition from the ICC identifies aggression as, “the use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement.” In other words, armed forces lawfully in a third party’s country suddenly acting unlawfully and in breach of the agreement may constitute aggression.

“Under two separate International Criminal Court (ICC) definitions of ‘aggression,'” Comar noted, “the U.S. likely committed an act of aggression against Iran in assassinating Soleimani.”

As Common Dreams reported earlier Saturday, the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed it killed Soleimani in an effort to thwart “imminent” attacks on Americans in Iraq. But, pressed by reporters, the administration has yet to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.

In response to the Trump administration’s claim of “anticipatory self-defense”—a justification also used by the Bush administration to invade Iraq—Comar wrote “this international legal standard is extremely difficult to meet.”

“Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations (U.N.) Charter, a breach of international peace is only permitted when authorized by the U.N. Security Council or conducted in an act of self-defense. Self-defense means fending off an armed attack,” Comar noted. “Absent evidence of such an extraordinary attack against the United States, ‘anticipatory’ self-defense, e.g., Pompeo’s stance that the killing was a ‘defensive action,’ likely cannot be legally justified.”

Comar wrote that Soleimani’s assassination “marks the most dangerous escalation between the United States and Iran in recent history, from which Iran and Iran’s neighboring countries will suffer the most.”

“Under the U.N. Charter, Iran and the United States have a legal obligation to settle their disputes peacefully,” Comar added. “As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, the United States has the ability at any time to discuss threats against it. It has chosen not to do this, instead using almost-certainly illegal force against another U.N. member country. The consequences will be grave.”

Comar is far from the only legal expert to conclude that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani was illegal under international law.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, tweeted late Thursday that the killing of Soleimani “is most likely unlawful and violate[s] international human rights law.”

Yale law professor Oona Hathaway agreed, writing in a series of tweets Friday that “based on what we currently know, the U.S. strike on Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani is legally tenuous under both domestic and international law.”

“Congress should begin hearings and demand answers about the legal basis and the plan for handling the inevitable fallout,” Hathaway said.

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

*

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

Trump’s Deja Vu Wartime Playbook

January 6th, 2020 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

History repeats itself, as they say. But in the age of American empire, not just twice. Or even three times. But with disturbing regularity.

The past half century shows two things about how America goes to war:

First, it creates a provocation based on a lie. Second, it then makes its target adversary an ‘offer they can only refuse’, as the final justification for US military action once the adversary rejects the unacceptable offer.

Here’s how it has worked in the past half century–a playbook to war that Trump is now clearly following in the case of Iran with his recent ordered assassination of that country’s general and government diplomat.

As for the initial provocations based on a lie:

1. In 1964 there was the infamous ‘Tonkin Gulf’ incident that provided then president Johnson the cover to escalate US involvement in Vietnam. Later Pentagon documents made public revealed the alleged attacks on US ships off Vietnam by North Vietnamese patrol boats was a total fabrication. 58,000 US and 2 million Vietnamese deaths later, the evidence came out that it was all a hoax.

2. Then there was the 1991 Gulf War. The convenient provocation that turned out to be a lie once again was the Bush administration claim that Iraq was killing babies in incubators in Kuwait. That too turned out to be false, propagated by a family member of the Kuwaiti royal elite who stood before US cameras showing the broken incubators. The US media of course did not properly identify her, instead depicting her as a concerned woman protesting the deaths of premature babies. The US media flooded the American evening news to create final public support for the subsequent US invasion. After the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq forces it was revealed it was all a staged event. Also revealed afterward was how the Bush Sr. administration, through the US ambassador, had told Saddam Hussein, that the US would not intervene if Saddam invaded Kuwait in the first place.

3. In 2001 immediately after 9-11 events in the US the excuse for invading Afghanistan was that the Taliban government in power at the time had assisted Bin Laden in attacking New York and Washington. It later came out the Taliban had nothing to do with planning or launching the attacks of 9-11. And little was said in the weeks, after 9-11 and preceding the US invasion of Afghanistan, that 18 of the 20 or so terrorists who flew the planes into the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon were in fact Saudi Arabian Wahhabi sect terrorists aided and supported by the Saudi government. Saudis in the US at the time of 9-11 were quickly flown out of the US by a plane arranged by the George W. Bush administration. Who left on the US aided flight is still publicly unknown to this day. The US ‘unacceptable offer’ to the Taliban was the demand it turn over Bin Laden and all his supporters in Afghanistan–i.e. something impossible without the Taliban provoking its own internal civil war.

4, Then we have the 2003 decision by Bush Jr. invading Iraq. Now the cover lie was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, having amassed ‘yellow cake’ uranium material with which to make a nuclear weapon. That too proved totally false after the fact. After the US invasion, nothing remotely representing weapons of mass destruction could be found anywhere despite intense US military efforts to discover such. But in the run-up to war in 2002-03 the lie provided the cover to start the war. And the US demand that Saddam allow US military personnel to roam free anywhere in Iraq–i.e. accept the invasion without resistance–constituted the ‘unacceptable offer’ that the US bet Saddam would reject.

All these lies as bases for provocation represent the standard approach by the US when it wants to go to war. The provocations are then followed by extending an unacceptable ‘offer they cannot accept’ to the targeted adversary. The unacceptable offer is the signal the US has already decided to go to war and is setting up a pretext to justify military action. By refusing the unacceptable offer, the adversary thus gives the US no alternative but to commence the military action.

In the case of the 2nd Gulf War the unacceptable offer was the US demand that US forces be allowed to enter Iraq, roam free unannounced wherever they wanted, and inspect all military bases and other government institutions without interference. In the first Gulf War, it was the similar demand that Saddam pull out all his forces from Kuwait,redeploy far from its borders, and permit US coalition inspectors into Iraq. In Vietnam, it was the Vietcong should disband and both it and North Vietnam should accept a permanent two-state solution, forever dividing North and South Vietnam.

In all cases the US way to war is to make an offer it knows will be refused so that it appears further negotiation or diplomatic efforts are fruitless. Thus only military action is left.

Trump’s Deja Vu Provocation

Trump’s recently ordered assassination of Iran’s senior military leader (who was also a senior Iranian diplomat, Soleimani, is being justified by the Trump administration based on claims that Soleimani and Iran were planning widespread terrorist actions that would have killed scores, if not hundreds, of Americans, if he weren’t assassinated. But no evidence of such a threat is being produced by Trump or his government to date. Evidence of the threat was noot even given to members of Congress, after the fact over this past weekend, as Trump post-hoc gave Congress an initial briefing on the action already taken. According to the War Powers Act, and well established precedent, Trump was required to consult Congress before the action, not after. And it has been leaked, though not picked up much by the US press, that that post-hoc briefing was considered seriously insufficient by many members of Congress in attendance.

Evidence lately is leaking out that Trump and his neocon foreign policy radical advisors have been planning the assassination at least since late December, and probably earlier. The Trump administration has been escalating its provocations since at least then. A mercenary US contractor was killed and the US compound in Baghdad was ‘attacked’ by protestors. That in itself was insufficient to launch the assassination provocation. For that, we now have the story of imminent threat to hundreds of Americans that Soleimani and Iran were planning.

In the case of Vietnam there at least was something tangible, in the false photos of the Tonkin Gulf incident. In the first Gulf War they flooded the US media with pictures of broken baby incubators. In 2003 we had then ambassador Colin Powell showing the United Nations his fake placards of installations in Baghdad where ‘yellow cake’ might be stored. Now with Trump all we get is to believe his claim widespread terrorist operations against the US were being planned. Claims from an administration already notorious for its lying, fake news, and fantasy tweets.

What’s Trump’s ‘Unacceptable Offer’?

Events in the days and weeks ahead (surely not months) will reveal what will be Trump’s ‘unacceptable offer’.

Following the assassination, Trump is now clearly waiting on Iran to take some kind of military action against US forces first. The US will use that attack by Iran as an excuse to reciprocate, which is what it apparently has decided to do in the first place back in late December. Since December Trump has been clearly engaged in escalating acts of provocation. The US is betting on Iran falling into the trap–a trap it can hardly avoid given its domestic politics and international commitments.

But in the current domestic US political climate, Trump cannot take military action first. He is prevented by the War Powers Act from doing so. He is also engaged in a domestic political fight over impeachment. A violation of the War Powers Act could potentially add another article of impeachment for violating the War Powers Act law. So he needs to provoke further military action by Iran. That will enable him to actually use the War Powers Act to reciprocate militarily against Iran, and remain still within the War Powers Act. For the Act permits the president to ‘protect US forces’ immediately and later come back to Congress for justification of the action. Trump will launch an attack on Iran should the latter attack US forces, and he’ll then argue his response was protected by the War Powers Act and not a violation of it.

Trump’s latest tweets identifying Iranian targets, including cultural targets, are also designed to threaten and infuriate Iran and get them to attack US forces first. Iran has already indicated it considers the assassination an ‘act of war’. Having said such, for it to do nothing would be politically unacceptable. Iran has publicly declared, however, its targets would be only US military. The likeliest military targets are in Iraq. Once Iran makes the next move, and where, and how, will define what Trump America’s ‘unacceptable offer’ as a prelude to war might well be.

The provocation (assassination of Soleimani) has been made. The US ‘unacceptable offer’ may not be long in coming.

Postscript On the Origins of War in the Period of Late American Empire

The past half century shows that America’s wars are more often than not precipitated by its presidents and their bureaucrat-intellectual advisors. The reasons are some combination of ideology, over-estimation of US power (and under-estimation of adversaries), and decisions by politicians to divert attention from domestic troubles, economic or political, to buttress their political standing or re-elections.

In the case of LBJ in the 1960s, it was clearly ideological in part. LBJ was obsessed with not losing Vietnam on his watch, as Truman ‘lost China’ on his, as he often said. Stop communism and the ‘domino theory’ was widely held by politicians and bureaucrats alike. LBJ was also surrounded by bureaucrat-intellectuals who believed US military power was omnipotent. How could jungle guerrillas in pajamas and sandals dare to resist US military might! Like the Japanese attack on the US in 1941, the thinking was to overwhelm them (guerrillas or USA) with a massive initial force and attack and they’d sue for peace and negotiate. The war would be short. But the USA in 1965 made the same miscalculation as did the militarists in Japan in 1941.

In 1991 the domestic political scene clearly played a role. The US had just experienced a deep financial crisis and a recession in 1990-91. The first Gulf War was a convenient distraction, and a way for then president George Bush Sr. to hopefully boost his re-election bid in 1992–by boosting the economy with war spending and by wearing the mantle of war victor.

In 2003 George W. Bush faced a similar economic and re-election dilemma. The recovery from the 2001 recession was weak. Military spending in Afghanistan was limited. There was no clear military victory. While US forces took over Kabul, the Taliban simply slipped away into the mountains to fight another day. The US economy began to weaken noticeably in 2002 once again. Bush and his neocon advisors had identified and targeted what they called an ‘Axis of Evil’ of countries that were not willing to abide by its rules of American global empire. The countries were: Libya, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea. Except for the latter, they were all easy military targets. Moreover, little evidence of ‘defeat’ of terrorists post 9-11 called for a necessary military action before the 2004 elections. Invading Iraq in 2003 would also boost the US economy in 2004. Bush Jr. would enter the 2004 race with a military-spending boosted economy and with military victory under his belt. Once again, distraction from domestic problems and/or boosting re-election were the main determinants–along with neocon-ultra conservative ideological rationalization for military action.

Something of a similar scenario exists today with Trump. Despite Trump hyperbole on the economy, deep weaknesses exist and threaten to emerge more full blown in an election year. Trump’s trade wars have produced little economic gain after two years. Domestic politics have left Trump with a pending impeachment hanging over his head, and unknown developments about his personal finances, deals made with foreign powers, and failures to deliver in foreign policy nearly everywhere.

Precipitating a war in his final year in office–should impeachment move forward and the economy move backward–is a card Trump the reckless, high risk taker, convinced of his own personal ego and superiority is very likely to play. He is clearly setting the stage for his big bet: will war with Iran boost his re-election plans and re-energize a weakening economy? Or will it lead to his political demise–as in the case of Johnson or Bush Sr.?

Which road will Trump take? (Which has he already decided to take?). Given the nature of his pre-war provocation in the recent assassination–and Iran’s apparent decision to take Trump’s bait–the odds are great that Trump is ‘rolling the dice’ and willing to engage in a risky military adventure. The ‘unacceptable offer’ when it comes will not be difficult to identify. It appears just a matter of time, and more likely sooner rather than later.

Trump’s imminent military adventure holds little in strategic gain for the USA, and great possible loss globally politically as well. But Trump has always been most concerned with his own personal interests, in this case his political re-election. He will, as he already has, sacrifice US long term interests. Trump is about Trump. And nothing else. Americans will not be made safer but less so. So too the world. And before it’s all over, political instability as we enter the current 2020s decade may well precipitate economic instability on a scale not yet seen.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published, January 2020 book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, available on his blog at discount at jackrasmus.com. He hosts the Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio Network and tweets at @drjackrasmus.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

On January 5, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi reportedly provided additional details into the US assassination of the commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force, Qassem Soleimani. 

According to the available data, the Iranian commander arrived in Baghdad under an official request from Iraq. He was set to receive de-escalation proposals that Saudi Arabia sent to Iran via Iraq. US President Donald Trump allegedly supported this idea during a phone call with the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Therefore, the US supposedly used this initiative to set a trap for the Iranian military commander and assasinate him.

HINT: President Donald Trump spoke over phone with Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi on December 31 after demonstrators stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

If these developments are confirmed, this will be another indication of the destructive behaviour of the modern United States. Washington has been violating international laws and breaking deals that it signs on a regular basis. Now, any negotiations that involve or linked with the United States also may pose a threat to representatives of the parties involved.

*

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

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

Featured image is from iranwire.com

The killing of Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander, by the United States marks a terrible escalation between the United States and Iran, which U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described as a “defensive action”:

.

.

.

But Pompeo is wrong on this point. The United States most likely committed an act of aggression against Iran and killed Soleimani in violation of human rights law. Here is why:

Killing a High-Ranking Government Official Is Likely an Act of Aggression

Aggression was originally defined at the Nuremberg Tribunal and was then later codified in part by General Assembly Resolution 3314 as well as by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC uses a definition of aggression derived from international customary law, which generally prohibits the invasion or attack with a state’s armed forces against the territory of another state—including through bombing a state, blockading its ports and coasts, or sending irregular/partisan/paramilitary forces to accomplish the same.

There are two important ICC definitions of aggression that are relevant here. First, an act of aggression can be, “an attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State”—in other words, attacking another state’s military. The killing of Soleimani would seem to fall under this definition, as he was a high-ranking military official in Iran. In an era of targeted killings and death by drone, where much of the world has become a battlefield, the grand-scale paratrooping of thousands of forces into enemy territory or tank-to-tank warfare has been replaced by single-shot missions against apex leadership of rival political entities. This definition of aggression is broad enough to cover a lone MQ-9 Reaper drone executing a general of another state’s armed forces.

The second important definition from the ICC identifies aggression as, “the use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement.” In other words, armed forces lawfully in a third party’s country suddenly acting unlawfully and in breach of the agreement may constitute aggression. This is relevant, as U.S. forces are only lawfully in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government—and the Iraqi care-taker Prime Minister has already described the attack as a “flagrant violation of the conditions authorising the presence of US troops” on Iraqi soil.

Under two distinct ICC descriptions, then, the U.S. likely committed an act of aggression against Iran in assassinating Soleimani.

The Nuremberg Tribunal called aggression the “supreme” international crime under international law.

“Anticipatory” Self-Defence Is a Very Tough Standard to Meet

While U.S. officials have claimed the attack on Soleimani was lawful as an act of anticipatory self-defence, this international legal standard is extremely difficult to meet. Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter, a breach of international peace is only permitted when authorised by the UN Security Council or conducted in an act of self-defence. Self-defence means fending off an armed attack.

With respect to so-called “anticipatory” self-defence, a state that strikes first must meet the heightened Caroline test, which requires that the necessity of self-defence “is instant, overwhelming, and leav[es] no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Absent evidence of such an extraordinary attack against the United States, “anticipatory” self-defence, e.g., Pompeo’s stance that the killing was a “defensive action,” likely cannot be legally justified.

Killing Soleimani May Constitute a Human Rights Violation

To justify the use of lethal force under human rights law requires a similar analysis, showing that the killing was strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life. UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions, Agnes Callamard, made this very point:

The Killing of Soleimani in Context

Tensions between the United States and Iran go back to 1953, when the United States overthrew the democratically-elected Mossadegh government. More recently, the United States has withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly-referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, and has instead placed crippling sanctions against Iran that have shrunk their economy by 15% in just two years.

The assassination of Soleimani marks the most dangerous escalation between the United States and Iran in recent history, from which Iran and Iran’s neighbouring countries will suffer the most.

Under the UN Charter, Iran and the United States have a legal obligation to settle their disputes peacefully. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the United States has the ability at any time to discuss threats against it. It has chosen not to do this, instead using almost-certainly illegal force against another UN member country. The consequences will be grave.

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

*

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

Inder Comar, (JD NYU Law, MA Stanford University, BA Stanford University) is the Managing Partner of Comar Mollé LLP, a corporate technology law firm, and the Executive Director of Just Atonement Inc., a non-profit human rights law firm. He practices in the United States and internationally. He is a Global Research Correspondent, Law and Justice, San Francisco, California.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

A State of War Exists Between the US and Humanity

January 6th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

There’s no ambiguity about what’s going on globally.

Washington’s geopolitical agenda is all about seeking dominance over other countries, their resources and populations worldwide — by whatever it takes to achieve its aims, notably by brute force and other hostile actions.

The Trump regime’s assassination of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (connected to the country’s military) were the latest examples of its state’s sponsored terrorism on the world stage.

Since Harry Truman’s aggression on North Korea in the early 1950s, a state of war has existed between the US and humanity.

It’s been ongoing endlessly since that time, smashing one nation after another by naked aggression, color revolutions, old-fashioned coups, economic terrorism, targeted assassinations, and other hostile actions.

No nation in world history caused more harm to more people over a longer duration than the US — a hegemonic menace, masquerading as democratic, a notion it tolerates nowhere, especially not at home.

Today is the most perilous time in world history, the risk of another global conflict real — potentially with nuclear weapons able to kill us all if used in enough numbers.

Most Americans are mindless of the greatest threat in their lifetimes because establishment media treat them like mushrooms — keeping them well-watered and in the dark.

Trump is a geopolitical know-nothing, a billionaire businessman/reality TV president — aware only about what his extremist handlers tell him, along with Fox News propaganda, his favorite TV station.

His regime’s assassination of Iranian and Iraqi military commanders is symptomatic of a nation off-the-rails, threatening everyone everywhere by its hegemonic rage.

He’s not the issue. If not him, someone else in charge would pursue the same agenda — dirty business as usual no matter who in the US serves in high office — in the White House, Congress, the bureaucracy and judicial branch.

That’s America’s disturbing state — today more threatening to humanity than earlier, at home and abroad.

Its criminal class is bipartisan, both warrior wings of its one-party state as menacing to humanity as the other.

In the wake of Trump regime assassinations, acts of war on Iran and Iraq, events are fast-moving.

On Sunday during an emergency session, Iraqi parliamentarians voted to expel US occupying and coalition forces, demanding it supported by Prime Minister Mahdi.

Two major parliamentary factions strongly backed the measure — the Fatah Alliance and prominent cleric Muqtada al-Sadr-led Sairoon.

Press TV reported that MPs “cit(ed) Articles 59 and 109 of the (Iraqi) Constitution” — expulsion “in line with their national and regulatory responsibilities as representatives to safeguard the security and sovereignty of Iraq.”

US forces were allowed back in the country to combat the scourge of ISIS — created and supported by Washington.

In late 2017, military operations against their jihadists were concluded. Iraqi parliamentarians and ruling authorities want US occupation of the country ended.

According to adopted legislation, Baghdad is required to file a formal complaint with the UN Security Council against US aggression on its territory.

Fatah Alliance head/Badr Organization secretary general Hadi al-Ameri called for expelling US forces from the country, saying the following:

“We will defeat Americans and drive them out, as we did earlier in the face of Daesh (ISIS).”

“We will expel Americans right before Iraqis’ eyes as they will be frustrated and humiliated.”

“We will press ahead with this struggle. We don’t have any option but to fully restore Iraq’s sovereignty.”

Time and again, Trump tweets and otherwise comments before he thinks.

On Sunday following Iraqi MPs voting for the expulsion of US forces, he said the following:

“We’re not leaving (Iraq) unless they pay us back for” what the US spent in the country — to smash it and massacre its people for decades, he failed to explain, adding:

“If they do ask us to leave…(w)e will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever.”

Iraq is US-occupied territory, threatening its sovereignty, population, and the region.

As long as US forces remain anywhere in the Middle East, and Washington continues supplying billions of dollars worth of heavy weapons to its belligerent nations, regional peace, stability and security will remain unattainable.

Ahead of Sunday’s vote by Iraqi parliamentarians, the Trump regime tried and failed to stop it.

Ongoing turmoil in the country with US dirty hands behind it makes it uncertain what’s coming next.

Pentagon forces will likely be forced out of Iraq, when and under what circumstances uncertain. It could be a long time coming or sooner. It’s too early to know either way.

Assassinating widely respected Iranian and Iraqi military commanders was a colossal Trump regime blunder.

It elevated them to martyr status, making them more prominent in death than alive, arousing the people of both countries, uniting them against the US hegemonic menace.

Only Cassandra was good at predicting future events. What’s ahead remains unknown for mere mortals like myself.

If past is prologue, most likely things will be more dismal than already, at home and abroad.

Endless US wars of aggression against nonbelligerent countries may continue in our lifetimes, new ones launched, hordes of newly recruited US terrorist foot soldier replacing eliminated ones.

Forever wars are the new normal, ones launched by the US post-9/11 continuing with no near-term prospect for resolution.

Along with Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Donbass (Ukraine), Occupied Palestine, and Iraq, Iran is in the eye of the storm.

Will the Trump regime attack Islamic Republic territory in the new year?

Will it risk the mother of all post-9/11 wars by going this far, boiling over the region more greatly than already, risking blockage of regional oil supplies to world markets — severe global recession conditions to follow if this happens and it’s protracted.

If Trump regime hardliners unleash greater Middle East fire and fury than already by attacking Iranian territory, global war could follow.

I believe US hot war with Iran is unlikely because of its potentially catastrophic consequences if launched.

At the same time, with hardliners in charge of US geopolitical policymaking in both right wings of its war party, the unthinkable is ominously possible.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

Whose Blood, Whose Hands?

January 6th, 2020 by S. Brian Willson

Qasem Soleimani had the blood of Americans on his hands”, so said US Representative Eliot Engel, Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Relations. A similar accusation was made by many other politicians and commentators. But these blood-drenched politicians and commentators only know what the extremely biased anti-Russian and anti-Iranian US intelligence reports say which are predictably unreliable. They have no idea of Soleimani’s history who many observers credit with being the chief strategist in defeating ISIS. And the most important question of all is ignored – why are unwanted US military present in other countries? They are there illegally, a blatantly imperial menace. Why is Congress funding this policy that in fact threatens the people of the US, rather than protecting them?

Of course, these mostly White men hypocritically ignore gruesome history, including militarily supporting Iraq’s Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons in his 8-year war against Iran that took one million of their lives. Or, the totally concocted, grotesquely illegal and criminal US war against Iraq, 1990-1991, and 2003-present, killing over a million lives. Since the blood is not streaming out of their bodies, they callously ignore the blood of Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, Yemenis, Libyans, Somalis, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Bolivians, Sudanese, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and citizens of many other countries, that is in fact on theirhands, and on the hands of countless US Generals, Colonels, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, and their Navy and Marine counterparts, and common soldiers and sailors under the direction of these officers, the President Commander–in-Chief, and all their funders in the bipartisan US Congress comprised of 535 (s)elected representatives, such as Mr. Engel, and the hands of millions of taxpayers.

How many US citizens know of the crimes our country systematically has committed, and continues to commit, throughout the world, crimes that are constant, remorseless, and fully documented? British playwright and Nobel Prize recipient Harold Pinter sadly commented: “Nobody talks about them. . . . It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest”.[1] Without historical context, there is little capacity to critique the veracity of contemporary policies and rhetoric. So, it is believed, the US just couldn’t be involved in patterns of criminal interventions; our origins just couldn’t be built on dispossession and genocide. “That is not the American way.” But the fact is that it isthe American way. We simply don’t know about it and don’t want to know about it. Impunity has erased memory.

We would all be enlightened to re-read Barbara Tuchman’s classic, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam,where she clearly articulates the horrific patterns of war folly that have played out around the globe for millennia.[2] Only now it would be from Troy to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Impunity

Cultural historians, philosophers, psychologists, essayists, and scientists caution us to seriously understand the past and its patterns. Sigmund Freud declared that in psychic life, nothing of what has been formed in the past ever disappears. Everything that has occurred is preserved in one way or another and, in fact, reappears under either favorable or unfavorable circumstances.

When impunity dominates, memory disappears and justice as a permanent value in human history ceases to exist. Sickness in the soul – of the individual, as well as of a nation – results where nothing is real. Everything becomes pretend, lies told over and over in many different forms throughout time.[3]

Impunity in fact produces severe disturbances within the individual and collective psyche, manifesting in behavioral psychopathologies of huge magnitude, such as wars. Think of a spoiled child who has never been taught boundaries or been held to account for harmful behavior. Collective as well as individual narcissism can lead to extreme antisocial conduct. Security is experienced through individuality, attracted to authoritarianism, but not social justice. An acquisitive habit settles into the inner life, preempting an authentic inquisitive and socially empathic mind. A social compact is destroyed in deference to privatization, creating anomie. Life is commodified. Disparity between the Haves and Have-Nots becomes extreme; today this is called neoliberal economics. History is negated, concealing past traumas such as unspeakable genocides and deceitfully based wars.[4]

The Shame of Forceful Dispossession Hidden by Exceptionalism

The United States of America was founded on two horrific genocides – the forceful dispossession of Indigenous Americans, stealing their land, murdering millions with impunity, and the forceful dispossession of Africans, stealing their labor, murdering millions with impunity. Their blood is still on our hands.

So, we created a kind of “religious” mythology about our country to conceal our painful shame. It is called exceptionalism, enabled by impunity. The psychological and cultural conditioning growing up in US America, especially for a Eurocentric White male like myself, is emotionally and intellectually comfortable. But the noble history we have been taught about ourselves is fantastic fakery which continues to serve as a comfortable escape from experiencing and feeling the horrible truth of the collective shame of our unspeakable criminal genocidal origins. Capitalism itself would not have existed without centuries of egregious colonial plunder of millions of Indigenous Americans, or millions of enslaved Africans. Karma exists in some fashion, or as the saying goes, what goes around comes around.

Exceptional Stupidity

So, not only does the lie of being superior over others enable us to avoid extremely unpleasant thoughts and feelings, but it also discourages asking enlightening, delving questions, about who we reallyare as a people. Why mess with the apparent successful myth of being exceptional?

US policy operates in paranoia with delusions of grandeur. By the early 1980s, with more than a decade of reflection since being in Viet Nam, I sensed that this culture of my birth and upbringing possesses an illness of psychotic denial. This feeling of superiority – of being uniquely exceptional – is very dangerous because it leads to a kind of stupor, or dangerous stupidity, uninterested in engaging in truly honest dialogue or discussion. It acts like a mindless, conceited fool. And against stupidity we are defenseless since reason and diplomacy are confidently ignored. It is much more dangerous than malice. Exceptionalism is deeply conditioned in us.

But thoughtlessness – a suspension of critical thinking – today leads to a Planet-threatening nuclear, arrogant war-making society. Not unintelligent, but stupid. And the power brokers, and many in the population, have a vested interest in remaining stupid to protect the comfortable original lie, that requires countless subsequent lies, in turn, to preserve that original lie. We have told ourselves a fairy tale, and it feels good, serving as a successful technique of denial.

Our dangerousness was again evidenced by our latest act of war – targeted drone assassinations at the Baghdad International Airport of Iran’s popular General Qasem Soleimani, and Iraqi military leader Abu Mehdi Muhandis. And until we the people are able to literally take the money out of the Military-Congressional-Intelligence-Banking-Wall Street-Drug Complex, and the ability of that wealthy complex to absolutely control with bribery our political process, we are doomed to war, climate catastrophe, and extinction, or near so.

Immediately after the assassination of Soleimani, the stock of major US weapon’s manufacturers surged as investors look forward to additional obscene profits from more war. Trump had it right in his campaign promise to get the US out of the Middle East, but he has forsaken that goal in deference to the Neocons and elements of the Deep State, in cahoots with Congress. Ironically, all this military bully posturing, murdering, lying, and disrespect for diplomacy, severely endangers everybody. The Department of Defense (DOD) really should be described as the Department of Offensive War (DOOW).

What is required is a massive, widespread popular rebellion rooted in a global consciousness that tenaciously empowers us to replace our deceitful oligarchy. Why do we continue to allow this insane national misbehavior? Will we escape our stupor, and instead feel, taste, and experience the countless liters of blood on our hands? If so, we might be awakened to the most important of all social emotions – empathy – that enables all humanity to live as one interconnected species, even with different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. It really is our choice, and the stakes could not be higher – survival with dignity.

*

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

Brian Willson is a Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer. He has visited a number of countries examining the effects of US policy. He wrote a psychohistorical memoir, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson(PM Press, 2011), and in 2018 wrote Don’t Thank Me for my Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies(Clarity Press). He is featured in a 2016 documentary, Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson, and others in the Peace Movement, (Bo Boudart Productions). His web essays: brianwillson.com. He can be reached at [email protected]He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Notes

[1] Harold Pinter, Various Voices: Prose, Poetry, Politics, 1948-1998(New York: Grove Press, 1998, 237.

[2] New York: Knopf, 1984.

[3] S. Brian Willson, “The Pretend Society,” http://www.brianwillson.com/the-pretend-society/.

[4] B. Paz Rojas, “Impunity and the Inner History of Life,” Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order, 26(4), 1999.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Whose Blood, Whose Hands?

Every day of 2019 we have provided you with articles that report, break down and analyze the pressing issues of our times by authors from all over the globe. We have kept access to the site free of charge so as to get the articles to as many people as possible. Global Research also remains fully independent by not accepting money from public or private foundations. As the internet becomes a less friendly space for independent media, we have seen our revenue from advertising and book sales drop dramatically over the past year.

We really will need a big boost in donations and membership subscriptions from our readership if we are to make it through 2020 and beyond. We would not be here without your support. We wish you and your loved ones Peace for the New Year.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


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

Click to view our membership plans

*     *     *

Whose Blood, Whose Hands?

By S. Brian Willson, January 06, 2020

How many US citizens know of the crimes our country systematically has committed, and continues to commit, throughout the world, crimes that are constant, remorseless, and fully documented? British playwright and Nobel Prize recipient Harold Pinter sadly commented: “Nobody talks about them. . . . It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening.

“To Initiate a War of Aggression Is Not Only an International Crime: It Is the Supreme International Crime”

By David W. Mathisen, January 06, 2020

Why should we have reason to be suspicious about the allegations we are hearing about General Soleimani preparing extensive attacks on Americans?

We have every reason to be suspicious about those allegations and to suspect that things are not necessarily as we are being told, because the entire pretext for invading Iraq in the first place, seventeen years ago in early 2003, was based on complete lies and fabrications.

Iran

Disruptive Assassinations: Killing Qassem Soleimani. Trump Promises “Bombing 52 Iranian Sites”

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 06, 2020

On the surface, it made not one iota of sense.  The murder of a foreign military leader on his way from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of irresistible richness.  “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”  The words from the Pentagon seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared resist them.  “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.  The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

Targeted Assassination, Will Iran Seek “Strategic Revenge”?

By Stephen Lendman, January 06, 2020

The US and Western partners are contemptuous of peace, stability, equity, justice, and the rule of law — waging war on humanity by hot and other means.

Where is the outrage in the West over the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis?

Under international law, killing them was Trump regime aggression.

The Coming Attack on Iran?

By Prince Kapone, January 05, 2020

According to Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), all signatory member nations possess the “inalienable right” to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”[1] As a signatory nation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to this most basic right, just like any other nation. However, the U.S. and its allies are seeking to infringe upon and limit Iran’s right to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes, asserting that the Iranian government is using its civilian nuclear program as a smokescreen for an alleged covert nuclear weapons program.[2] These assertions are backed by no credible evidence, just the assurances of the U.S. and Israeli governments respectively. It is further insinuated that once Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will certainly use them to “wipe Israel off the ma

Implications of the Trump Regime’s Assassination of Iran’s General Soleimani

By Prof. Tim Anderson, January 05, 2020

The US assassinations of Iran’s General Soleimani and Iraqi General Muhandis will certainly undermine security in the Middle East. In the short term, it is certain to lead to an escalation of violence. Iran’s National Security Council met and announced that a harsh vengeance “in due time and right place” awaits “the criminals behind the assassination”. Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei has called for “severe revenge”. Iran has to retaliate to this cowardly attack, and all the key Iranian leaders have said that they will do so, at the right time. There are dozens of US targets in the region.

Foul Murder of Another Nation’s Hero: An American Disgrace

By Diana Johnstone, January 05, 2020

The criminal assassination of General Qassem Soleimani was not only an act of war, it was an act of low treachery and crass stupidity.  Among the self-justifying lies, leaders of the perpetual war regime in Washington claim that locating the targeted military leader was a brilliant accomplishment of U.S. intelligence.

The Murder of General Suleimani. Trump Expected Public Applause. It Didn’t Happen…

By Peter Koenig, January 05, 2020

General Suleimani was killed by a US drone. He was not only the most popular and prominent military officer in Iran, but he was also influential and respected throughout the Middle East. He was chief in training Iraqi forces who eventually defeated ISIS in Iraq within less than a year, when the US and NATO estimated it would take at least 3 years. General Suleimani, along with Russia was also instrumental in training the Syrian armed forces with the objective of defeating ISIS / IS / DEASH in Syria, and they succeeded. This US act of impunity, the General Suleimani killing, was unmistakenly targeted with precision and as such a clear declaration of war on Iran.

Soleimani’s Assassination: An Act of Psychological Warfare

By Douglas Valentine and Mostafa Afzalzadeh, January 05, 2020

The process of converting “intelligence” gained on foreign adversaries into policy relies on an impenetrable barrier of secrecy. As Guy Debord said, secrecy dominates this world, foremost as the secret of dominance. This highly restricted process of access to information allows politicians, intel bureaucrats and their corporate partners in the arms industry 1) to turn Lies into Truth and 2) gobble up the lion’s share of the US budget, at the expense of the general welfare of the citizens. This means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the poor never have any idea what’s really happening.

The Foremost State Sponsor of Terror, the United States of America: Assassination of Soleimani – What Next?

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, January 05, 2020

Heartbroken at the defeat of ISIS, the United States bombed the man who had led that defeat.    Trump bombed to kill Soleimani and to save ISIS, to expand its hegemony.  Trump failed. He obliterated any chance this world had for peace and he managed to plant the seed of revenge in every heart that beats for justice.  Iran does not mourn alone.  Make no mistake – it was not one man that was killed.  It was the fragile hope of peace, of our future and that of our world that was destroyed.   Trump was Iran’s 911.  He forced a fate akin to 911 but vastly different.

The Soleimani Assassination: The Long-Awaited Beginning of the End of America’s Imperial Ambitions

By Philip Giraldi, January 03, 2020

The United States is now at war with Iran in a conflict that could easily have been avoided and it will not end well. There will be no declaration of war coming from either side, but the assassination of Iranian Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani and the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah Abu Mehdi Muhandis by virtue of a Reaper drone strike in Baghdad will shift the long-simmering conflict between the two nations into high gear. Iran cannot let the killing of a senior military officer go unanswered even though it cannot directly confront the United States militarily. But there will be reprisals and Tehran’s suspected use of proxies to stage limited strikes will now be replaced by more damaging actions that can be directly attributed to the Iranian government. As Iran has significant resources locally, one can expect that the entire Persian Gulf region will be destabilized.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Assassination of Qassem Soleimani, An Act of War

As a citizen of the United States, a graduate of West Point, Ranger School and other Army schools, and former officer in the Regular Army, sworn to support and defend the Constitution, I am disgusted at the despicable, immoral and illegal murder of General Soleimani (of Iran), General Al-Ibrahim aka Mahdi Al-Muhandis (of Iraq), and their drivers and accompanying soldiers, by drone strikes on their cars as they were driving from the Baghdad Airport while on their way to attend the funerals of members of their militias killed by aircraft strikes days earlier.

The US Constitution contains provisions for the declaration of war, because the Constitution explicitly states that one of its purposes is “to provide for the common defense” of the nation.

It assigns the grave authority of declaring war to the Congress, in Article 1 of the Constitution, and it is understood that the founders gave this authority to Congress because the members of Congress most fully represent the will of the people, and the rules and procedures of the two houses of Congress require deliberation and debate before enacting legislation and certainly before declaring war, enabling different arguments to be aired and considered.

The representatives of the people of the US have not declared war on either Iran or Iraq, and   thus no state of war exists between the US and those countries, making the cold-blooded assassination of officers (or anyone else) from those countries illegal and completely against the “laws of nations” which is described in the Constitution (see sentences underlined in red from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, shown above).

Indeed, by all accounts, this dastardly assassination was perpetrated before Congress was even told about it. By the time the Congress was told, the assassination of the two generals and their accompanying soldiers had already taken place.

The citizens of the United States are now being assured that abundant intelligence exists showing that these generals were planning attacks on American targets in Iraq and beyond, just as we have been told that the Iraqi militia positions hit by American airstrikes were somehow determined to have been linked to rocket attacks on the “K1” base in Kirkuk where one contractor was killed — thus far without any actual evidence having been presented to the world to back up these allegations (very limited details have been released).

Why should we have reason to doubt what we are being told about the perpetrators of the attacks on K1?

Why should we have reason to be suspicious about the allegations we are hearing about General Soleimani preparing extensive attacks on Americans?

We have every reason to be suspicious about those allegations and to suspect that things are not necessarily as we are being told, because the entire pretext for invading Iraq in the first place, seventeen years ago in early 2003, was based on complete lies and fabrications.

The most dastardly of these lies, used to support the war of aggression against Iraq, was the lie that Iraq had something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001.

There is now so much evidence which shows that the official story of what took place on that awful day is a complete pack of lies that nobody who examines that evidence can possibly fail to conclude that we have been lied to about September 11th for going on nineteen years — and those lies have been used to “justify” (falsely justify, of course, which is no justification at all) wars of aggression which have resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of thousands (probably now numbering in the millions) of innocent civilians, including children, and in the complete devastation of numerous countries and the immiseration of their people.

Wars of aggression are absolutely condemned in the “laws of nations.” The Constitution does not provide for the declaration of war or the raising of armies in order to commit wars of aggression. The Nuremberg military tribunal, convened in the aftermath of World War II to try Nazi war criminals, declared that “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

The assassination of General Soleimani and General Al-Muhandis must therefore be viewed in this context. These assassinations are tantamount to an act of war, an act of war which could be characterized as a war of aggression, the supreme international crime. And these assassinations were committed without even the consent of Congress, not that Congress has done anything to stop the illegal wars of aggression which have been perpetrated under the false justification (which is no justification at all) of the official story of September 11, 2001 — an official story which can be easily shown to be an outright pack of lies.

There is also the fact that these officers were going to attend funerals of militia members who had been killed days earlier in airstrikes which themselves were committed on the pretense that those militias had something to do with a rocket strike on K1 in Kirkuk, hundreds of kilometers away — allegations which must also be viewed with suspicion.

In point of fact, these militias (and their leader, the late General Al-Muhandis) were actively engaged in combating ISIS / Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and these airstrikes and now the murder of their general should be seen in the context of abundant evidence which points to the conclusion that ISIS / Daesh has been secretly armed and enabled all along by certain nefarious forces using it as a proxy force or a “foreign legion” to carry out regime change against the Syrian government (another war of aggression which has led to massive loss of life, displacement of families, and impoverishment and immiseration).

Indeed, General Soleimani has been widely credited with being the master tactician and strategist who enabled Syria to defeat the murderous brigands of ISIS / Daesh, which is part of the reason he was so popular and so respected.

A few years ago, all we heard about from the news-media and from politicians in the US was how horrible ISIS / Daesh was, and how important it was to defeat them. We hear next to nothing about ISIS / Daesh anymore — but for some reason those very men who are presently fighting ISIS / Daesh in Iraq are now categorized as “terrorists,” airstrikes are carried out against their outposts, and the cowardly assassination of their leaders while those leaders are driving from the airport on the way to the funerals of those killed by those airstrikes is celebrated as some kind of heroic accomplishment, with nary a voice in the controlled media raising a single question.

I am personally revolted by those who order and carry out drone strikes on funerals or on weddings, and I would argue that everyone who believes in the law of  law of God, or the “law of nations” described in the Constitution) should be equally revolted at such barbarous behavior.

The Declaration of Independence signed on July 4, 1776 spent quite a bit of space enumerating war crimes perpetrated by Britain, against which the founders of the United States were justifiably outraged.

The lines of the Constitution reproduced in the image above include the authorization (given to Congress, in Article 1, section 8) “to define and punish piracies on the High Seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”

By this we see that the founders held offenses against the law of nations to be in the same category as piracy — and no doubt they would have seen the assassination of officers of nations with whom a nation is not at war as a violation of the law of nations (indeed, such assassinations are universally understood to be a violation of the law of nations to this day).

We also see in this passage from the Constitution the rebuttal to those who will argue against my objections above, saying that “even if we are not at war with Iran or Iraq, we certainly must have recourse to stop their military leaders if they are plotting and committing crimes against our citizens or our soldiers.” To this rebuttal, I would first point out that the illegal invasion of Iraq was made under false pretenses, but beyond that, we can grant the objection and show that the Constitution clearly anticipates the likelihood that there will indeed be some enemies who do not observe the “law of nations” (including these enemies in the same category as pirates) — and that the Constitution quite explicitly gives the authority of defining and punishing such behavior to the Congress.

Thus, the Constitution makes provisions enabling Congress to act and deal with pirates and those who commit felonies in violation of the law of nations.

Tragically, however, if the members of the Congress are willing to accept the lies within the official narrative of the mass-murders perpetrated against American citizens on September 11, 2001 despite all of the evidence which has surfaced in the past eighteen years (or at least to pretend while in public that they accept the official narrative), then they will no doubt accept or pretend to accept whatever “evidence” is trotted out to show that the militia bases hit by the airstrikes last week were somehow connected to the rocket attacks on K1 in Kirkuk, and whatever “evidence” is trotted out to show that General Soleimani was planning some kind of extensive attacks on Americans in Iraq and outside of it.

But the fact remains that no such evidence was even brought before the Congress, prior to the moment that these extra-judicial assassinations by drone, tantamount to acts of war, were perpetrated.

But it gets even worse. We now have the spectacle of the US vice president, suddenly and seemingly out of nowhere, tweeting allegations (never heard before, even in the official report of the events of September 11, 2001) that General Soleimani was somehow partly responsible for September 11, 2001.

Does the big lie about the mass-murders of September 11, 2001 have no limit to its applications as a tool for attempting to justify new illegal acts, even today in the year 2020?

Can anyone still be so ignorant of the evidence that the official story of September 11, 2001 is an outright lie (a completely unsustainable lie) that he or she will fall for these arguments?

What makes this incredible and hitherto-unheard allegation against the murdered General Soleimani so shocking is the fact that General Soleimani actually assisted the US in strategic and tactical planning against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the immediate aftermath of the September 2001 attacks.

I myself was at West Point as an instructor at the time of the September 11 attacks, and at the time I uncritically accepted the official story attributing those attacks to fanatical Sunni extremists, and continued to do so for many years afterwards. For about eight years, I was vehemently opposed to any suggestion that the destruction and mass-murder that was committed on that day had somehow not been the work of nineteen hijackers with box-cutters.

However, it is no longer the year 2001.

More than eighteen years after the fact, there is simply no excuse for not realizing that the official story is an unsustainable lie.

  • World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint at a speed indistinguishable from free-fall speed, despite not being struck by any airliner.
  • Hijacked airliners continued to fly around for over an hour without being engaged by any military interceptor aircraft, even after the World Trade Center towers had been struck.
  • Something (we are told it was a jetliner) struck the Pentagon (the central headquarters of the entire American military) without ever being engaged by any ground-based air-defense assets.
  • Numerous military drills involving aircraft were taking place on that same day, by “astonishing coincidence” (unless we are prepared to believe that somehow these nineteen extremist hijackers also managed to schedule massive military drills on the same day that they had selected for their operation).
  • The crime scene of the collapsed towers of World Trade Center 1 and 2 was not investigated but instead was deliberately and rapidly destroyed, the steel carted away in short order, never to be subjected to rigorous forensic analysis.

The list of events which demonstrate beyond any doubt that the official narrative cannot possibly be true goes on and on.

To try to stretch this lie, the lie about what took place on September 11 and about who was responsible for those mass-murders of thousands of innocent civilians, over this week’s murders of General Soleimani and General Al-Muhandis is beyond belief.

The American people need to wake up and condemn the wars of aggression which are being perpetrated in their name, under absolutely false pretenses, wars of aggression which (in the words of the Nuremberg tribunal) constitute “the supreme international crime,” and they need to demand that their elected representatives condemn this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional behavior.

We have had almost nineteen years of evidence which shows that Congress will not lift a finger to stop these criminal and unconstitutional wars, as long as their constituents are not raising any outcry. We cannot expect Congress to do the right thing unless we demand it, in massive numbers and expressing our outrage at the crimes that are being committed in our name.

Nobody else in the world can do it for us — it is up to the citizens of the united states to make these demands.

Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; [. . .]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [. . .]

*

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

David W. Mathisen is the author of eight books about the connections of the world’s ancient myths to the stars. He is a graduate of West Point and has a masters degree in literature from Texas A&M University. His website can be found at www.starmythworld.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “To Initiate a War of Aggression Is Not Only an International Crime: It Is the Supreme International Crime”
  • Tags: ,

Assassination Is Not a Foreign Policy

January 6th, 2020 by Massoud Nayeri

Iraqi Parliament Moves to Oust All U.S Troops from Iraq

January 6th, 2020 by Joaquin Flores

In an extraordinary session on Sunday, 170 Iraqi lawmakers have reportedly signed a resolution requiring the government to request the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Only 150 votes were needed for the draft resolution to be approved.

The session came two days after a US drone strike on a convoy at Baghdad airport which killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces deputy chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

“There is no need for the presence of American forces after defeating Daesh,” said Ammar al-Shibli, a lawmaker and member of the parliamentary legal committee, Reuters reported.

“We have our own armed forces which are capable of protecting the country,” he said.

Around 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq, most of them in an advisory capacity.

In the face of the Iraqi people’s will, the Iraqi parliament is facing a historic test about voting to expel US troops from Iraq.

Expelling Iraqi troops has turned into a “national demand”.

During the funeral procession for General Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC Quds Force, and al-Muhandis in Baghdad,  al- Kadhimiya,  Karbala and Najaf, hundreds of thousands of angry Iraqi mourners carried placards demanding an immediate withdrawal of “US terrorists” from their country.

Following the terrorist attack by the US, Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi asked the parliament to take a formal position based on Article 58 of the Iraqi constitution about the “illegal action” of the US army.

The prime minister said the US move was a violation of the Iraqi sovereignty and an affront to national pride.

The prime minister called the US act a dangerous move which will trigger another devastating war in Iraq and the region.

Since the US terrorist attack, rival political leaders have called for US troops to be expelled from Iraq in an unusual show of unity among factions that have squabbled for months.

Hadi al-Amiri, the top candidate to succeed al-Muhandis, repeated his call for US troops to leave Iraq on Saturday during an elaborate funeral procession for those killed in the attack.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraqi Parliament Moves to Oust All U.S Troops from Iraq
  • Tags: ,

The Terrifying Rise of the Zombie State Narrative

January 6th, 2020 by Craig Murray

The ruling Establishment has learnt a profound lesson from the debacle over Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. The lesson they have learnt is not that it is wrong to attack and destroy an entire country on the basis of lies. They have not learnt that lesson despite the fact the western powers are now busily attacking the Iraqi Shia majority government they themselves installed, for the crime of being a Shia majority government.

No, the lesson they have learnt is never to admit they lied, never to admit they were wrong. They see the ghost-like waxen visage of Tony Blair wandering around, stinking rich but less popular than an Epstein birthday party, and realise that being widely recognised as a lying mass murderer is not a good career choice. They have learnt that the mistake is for the Establishment ever to admit the lies.

The Establishment had to do a certain amount of collective self-flagellation over the non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, over which they precipitated the death and maiming of millions of people. Only a very few outliers, like the strange Melanie Phillips, still claimed the WMD really did exist, and her motive was so obviously that she supported any excuse to kill Muslims that nobody paid any attention. Her permanent pass to appear on the BBC was upgraded. But by and large everyone accepted the Iraqi WMD had been a fiction. The mainstream media Blair/Bush acolytes like Cohen, Kamm and Aaronovitch switched to arguing that even if WMD did not exist, Iraq was in any case better off for having so many people killed and its infrastructure destroyed.

These situations are now avoided by the realisation of the security services that in future they just have to brazen it out. The simple truth of the matter – and it is a truth – is this. If the Iraq WMD situation occurred today, and the security services decided to brazen it out and claim that WMD had indeed been found, there is not a mainstream media outlet that would contradict them.

The security services outlet Bellingcat would publish some photos of big missiles planted in the sand. The Washington Post, Guardian, New York Times, BBC and CNN would republish and amplify these pictures and copy and paste the official statements from government spokesmen. Robert Fisk would get to the scene and interview a few eye witnesses who saw the missiles being planted, and he would be derided as a senile old has-been. Seymour Hersh and Peter Hitchens would interview whistleblowers and be shunned by their colleagues and left off the airwaves. Bloggers like myself would be derided as mad conspiracy theorists or paid Russian agents if we cast any doubt on the Bellingcat “evidence”. Wikipedia would ruthlessly expunge any alternative narrative as being from unreliable sources. The Integrity Initiative, 77th Brigade, GCHQ and their US equivalents would be pumping out the “Iraqi WMD found” narrative all over social media. Mad Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council would be banning dissenting accounts all over the place in his role as Facebook Witchfinder-General.

Does anybody seriously wish to dispute this is how the absence of Iraqi WMD would be handled today, 16 years on?

If you do wish to doubt this could happen, look at the obviously fake narrative of the Syrian government chemical weapons attacks on Douma. The pictures published on Bellingcat of improvised chlorine gas missiles were always obviously fake. Remember this missile was supposed to have smashed through ten inches of solid, steel rebar reinforced concrete.

As I reported back in May last year, that the expert engineers sent to investigate by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) did not buy into this is hardly surprising.

That their findings were deliberately omitted from the OPCW report is very worrying indeed. What became still more worrying was the undeniable evidence that started to emerge from whistleblowers in the OPCW that the toxicology experts had unanimously agreed that those killed had not died from chlorine gas attack. The minutes of the OPCW toxicology meeting really do need to be read in full.

actual_toxicology_meeting_redacted

The highlights are:

“No nerve agents had been detected in environmental or bio samples”
“The experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure”

I really do urge you to click on the above link and read the entire minute. In particular, it is impossible to read that minute and not understand that the toxicology experts believed that the corpses had been brought and placed in position.

“The experts were also of the opinion that the victims were highly unlikely to have gathered in piles at the centre of the respective apartments, at such a short distance from an escape from any toxic chlorine gas to much cleaner air”.

So the toxicology experts plainly believed the corpse piles had been staged, and the engineering experts plainly believed the cylinder bombs had been staged. Yet, against the direct evidence of its own experts, the OPCW published a report managing to convey the opposite impression – or at least capable of being portrayed by the media as giving the opposite impression.

How then did the OPCW come to do this? Rather unusually for an international organisation, the OPCW Secretariat is firmly captured by the Western states, largely because it covers an area of activity which is not of enormous interest to the political elites of developing world states, and many positions require a high level of technical qualification. It was also undergoing a change of Director General at the time of the Douma investigation, with the firmly Francoist Spanish diplomat Fernando Arias taking over as Director General and the French diplomat Sebastian Braha effectively running the operation as the Director-General’s chef de cabinet, working in close conjunction with the US security services. Braha simply ordered the excision of the expert opinions on engineering and toxicology, and his high-handedness worked, at least until whistleblowers started to reveal the truth about Braha as a slimy, corrupt, lying war hawk.

FFM here stands for Fact Finding Mission and ODG for Office of the Director General. After a great deal of personal experience dealing with French diplomats, I would say that the obnoxious arrogance revealed in Braha’s instructions here is precisely what you would expect. French diplomats as a class are a remarkably horrible and entitled bunch. Braha has no compunction about simply throwing around the weight of the Office of the Director General and attempting to browbeat Henderson.

We see now how the OPCW managed to produce a report which was the opposite of the truth. Ian Henderson, the OPCW engineer who had visited the site and concluded that the “cylinder bombs” were fakes, had suddenly become excluded from the “fact finding mission” when it had been whittled down to a “core group” – excluding any engineers (and presumably toxicologists) who would seek to insert inconvenient facts into the report.

France of course participated, alongside the US and UK, in missile strikes against Syrian government positions in response to the non-existent chlorine gas attacks on Douma. I was amongst those who had argued from day one that the western Douma narrative was inherently improbable. The Douma enclave held by extreme jihadist, western and Saudi backed forces allied to ISIL, was about to fall anyway. The Syrian government had no possible military advantage to gain by attacking it with two small improvised chemical weapons, and a great deal to lose in terms of provoking international retaliation.

That the consequences of the fake Douma incident were much less far-reaching than they might have been, is entirely due (and I am sorry if you dislike this but it is true) to the good sense of Donald Trump. Trump is inclined to isolationism and the fake “Russiagate” narrative promoted by senior echelons of his security services had led him to be heavily sceptical of them. He therefore refused, against the united persuasion of the hawks, to respond to the Douma “attack” by more than quick and limited missile strikes. I have no doubt that the object of the false flag was to push the US into a full regime change operation, by falsifying a demonstration that a declared red line on chemical weapon use had been crossed.

There is no doubt that Douma was a false flag. The documentary and whistleblower evidence from the OPCW is overwhelming and irrefutable. In addition to the two whistleblowers reported extensively by Wikileaks and the Courage Foundation, the redoubtable Peter Hitchens has his own whistleblowers inside OPCW who may well be different persons. It is also great entertainment as well as enlightening to read Hitchens’ takedown of Bellingcat on the issue.

But there are much deeper questions about the Douma false flag. Did the jihadists themselves kill the “chlorine victims” for display or were these just bodies from the general fighting? The White Helmets were co-located with the jihadist headquarters in Douma, and involved in producing and spreading the fake evidence. How far were the UK and US governments, instrumental in preparing the false flag? That western governments, including through the White Helmets and their men at the OPCW, were plainly seeking to propagate this false flag, to massively publicise and to and make war capital out of it, is beyond dispute. But were they involved in the actual creation of the fake scene? Did MI6 or the CIA initiate this false flag through the White Helmets or the Saudi backed jihadists? That is unproven but seems to me very probable. It is also worth noting the coincidence in time of the revelation of the proof of the Douma false flag and the death of James Le Mesurier.

Now let me return to where I started. None of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Guardian nor CNN – all of which reported the Douma chemical attack very extensively as a real Syrian government atrocity, and used it to editorialise for western military intervention in Syria – none of them has admitted they were wrong. None has issued any substantive retraction or correction. None has reported in detail and without bias on the overwhelming evidence of foul play within the OPCW.

Those sources who do publish the truth – including the few outliers in mainstream media such as Peter Hitchens and Robert Fisk – continue to be further marginalised, attacked as at best eccentric and at worse Russian agents. Others like Wikileaks and myself are pariahs excluded from any mainstream exposure. The official UK, US, French and Spanish government line, and the line of the billionaire and state owned media, continues to be that Douma was a Syrian government chemical weapons attack on civilians. They intend, aided and abetted by their vast online propaganda operations, to brazen out the lie.

What we are seeing is the terrifying rise of the zombie state narrative in Western culture. It does not matter how definitively we can prove that something is a lie, the full spectrum dominance of the Establishment in media resources is such that the lie is impossible to kill off, and the state manages to implant that lie as the truth in the minds of a sufficient majority of the populace to ride roughshod over objective truth with great success. It follows in the state narrative that anybody who challenges the state’s version of truth is themselves dishonest or mad, and the state manages also to implant that notion into a sufficient majority of the populace.

These are truly chilling times.

In the next instalment I shall consider how the Establishment is brazening out similar lies on the Russophobe agenda, and sticking to factually debunked narratives on the DNC and Podesta emails, on the Steele Dossier and on the Skripals.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Terrifying Rise of the Zombie State Narrative

People from across the United States heeded calls from the ANSWER Coalition and CODEPINK on Saturday, resulting in protests against a possible U.S. war on Iran in more than 70 cities across 38 U.S. states.

The protests, demanding for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq and ending sanctions on Iran, were called for earlier this week in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ordering of additional U.S. troops to the Middle East in response to protests following U.S. air strikes. Tensions quickly increased as the U.S. ordered the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the popular leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, and, as a result, the protests quickly morphed into an emergency mobilization aimed at stopping what some fear could become World War III.

Tensions between Iran and the United States are nothing new, but have been steadily increasing ever since Trump formally reneged on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—in May of 2018.

Protesters across the country joined together to demand an end to U.S. presence in Iraq and the Middle East and to no new war with Iran. During the past nearly 30 years, more than one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of U.S. occupation, sanctions, and bombing, with the U.S. government having spent trillions of dollars.

Trump repeatedly promised on the campaign trail and after taking office that he would put “America first” and would bring our troops home. Instead, he repeatedly and recklessly brings the U.S. on the brink of war with various nations time and time again. But this far, many believe, he went too far.

Americans are fed up with endless wars, concerned about the future for their children, are appalled at the cost of war while the funding of services at home continually falls short, and deeply concerned about the wellbeing of innocent lives in the Middle East, and more. And so they joined together with one voice on January 4 to tell the Trump administration: “No War With Iran!”

Alabama

Birmingham:

Alaska

Fayetteville:

Arizona

Phoenix:

Tucson:

Arkansas

Little Rock:

California

Fresno:

Los Angeles:

Sacramento:

San Diego:

San Francisco:

Check the rest of the demonstrations here.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tens of Thousands Rally Against War with Iran in over 70 Cities Across US
  • Tags: ,

Canada’s official government response to the U.S. military airstrike on Iraq, that killed powerful Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani on January 3rd, basically says nothing, but also says a great deal.

“We call on all sides to exercise restraint and pursue de-escalation. Our goal is and remains a united and stable Iraq,” outlines a Global Affairs Canada statement, quoting François-Philippe Champagne, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as also saying, “Canada has long been concerned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Qods Force, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose aggressive actions have had a destabilizing effect in the region and beyond.”

Let us consider, in regards to Canada’s official statement today, the lack of any real detail. Soleimani was “destabilizing” according to who? Soleimani carried out “aggressive actions” according to who?

Certainly the Canadian government press release fits into the political framework expressed by the Trump administration, who carried out the extrajudicial killing at the Baghdad International Airport.

Why is Canada’s Liberal government simply parroting U.S. talking points? This is not independent foreign policy. Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister is repeating the rhetoric of Trump administration officials, like U.S. Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, who is expressing support for and direct political links with President Trump’s decision to carry out the extrajudicial killing of Soleimani.

Yesterday, The New Yorker magazine published an interview with Vali Nasr, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a senior adviser to the State Department during the Obama Administration, that outlines clearly some of the influence of Soleimani politically and some of the context in relation to internal Iranian political structures. Additionally this feature article, also in The New Yorker, gives some background context on Soleimani.

Within these texts and beyond we clearly see the reasons why Canada’s official response to the Trump administration’s assassination of Soleimani can’t simply be a quarter page press release repeating the talking points of U.S. officials.

Canada’s selective expression of righteous indignation, in regards to human rights and international law, under the Trudeau government, is not limited to Iran, or the Middle East region. Under the Liberals we see a policy approach of hypocrisy, clearly outlined in this CBC opinion article, in regards to human rights, that also reaches across Latin America. For example, until now, the Canadian government has largely been reserved in criticizing systemic human rights abuses against indigenous people in Bolivia, documented by Human Rights Watch, that have taken place since the U.S. supported “transitional” government seized in La Paz, after the ouster of Bolivia’s first indigenous president Evo Morales in October.

On Iraq, in this very brief official statement yesterday, Canada works to normalizes an extrajudicial assassination by the U.S. military under Trump, as the air strike is a clear violation of Iraq sovereignty and of international law. Amnesty International writesclearly on this type of killing, “extrajudicial executions are not only acts of extreme cruelty, violating the laws of the countries where they are perpetrated; they also violate international standards on human rights.”

In 2018, at the United Nations Nelson Mandela Peace Summit, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that “Canada will always stand tall for democracy, the rule of law and human rights at home and abroad.” On Iran, the Liberal government illustrates, that in regards to the extrajudicial assassination of Soleimani’s in Baghdad yesterday, that “standing tall” for the rule of law, as Trudeau described it, is only selectively and hypocritically applied by the Liberal government.

Beyond the specific bombing at Baghdad’s airport, this assassination of Soleimani speaks in significant ways to the moves by the Trump administration in D.C., to push a chaotic, but also culturally imperialistic, strike first and plan later foreign policy approach. This policy orientation, that the Trump administration is pushing now, in regards to Iran and the wider region, is a framework mirrored in past U.S. administrations, particularly the George W. Bush administration in the years after 9/11.

Connecting current events to 2003 U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spoke out clearly against the air strike on Iraq. A statement that contrasts in extreme ways to Canadian politicians, including the NDP, who have failed until now to say anything meaningful on the assassination of Soleimani.

Vermont Senator Sanders stated on Friday, that Soleimani’s assassination “is a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East, which could cost countless lives, and trillions more dollars and lead to even more death, more conflict, more displacement in that already highly volatile region of the world.”

In this meaningful statement by Sanders, there is a link made between Soleimani’s assassination in 2020 and the 2002 / 2003 lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, this is an important connection.

Sanders stated, “it gives me no pleasure to tell you that at this moment we face a similar crossroads, fraught with danger. Once again we must worry about unintended consequences and the impact of unilateral decision making,” stated Sanders, who went on to point to the impacts of U.S. wars on working people, in saying, “I know that it is rarely the children of the billionaire class who face the agony of reckless foreign policy, it is the children of working families.”

Importantly, Sanders links the current Trump administration to the military actions of past Republican administration under George W. Bush, in outlining that “unfortunately Trump ignored the advice of his own security officials and listened to right wing extremists, some of whom were exactly the same people who got us into the war on Iraq in the first place. As we all remember Trump promised to end endless wars, tragically his actions now put us on the path to another war, potentially one that could be even worse than before.”

This statement by Sanders, that links the U.S. assassination of Soleimani with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, is important for Canadian politics for many reasons, first, because a fully fledged U.S. war with Iran would deeply impact the entire planet, including Canada, but also because of the political narrative on Canada’s decision to not join fully the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq has played in Canadian political identity over the last fifteen years.

In contrast to Canada’s decision, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, to not fully support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, today, the Canadian government is silent, with no serious response to a series of military offensive actions by U.S. military power in the Middle East, which could all lead toward a serious military conflict between nation states, a war that most certainly wouldn’t be isolated to one particular country, due to the complex array of political power alliances across regional borders, for both Iran and the U.S.

In referencing the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, let us also remember that the decision taken by the then Liberal government under Prime Minister Chrétien, to not fully join the U.S. invasion of Iraq, took place within the context of some of the largest anti-war demonstrations in the history of Montreal, with hundreds-of-thousands of people taking the streets in the winter of 2003 in Montreal on multiple occasions, with significant protests in other cities as well, including Toronto and Vancouver.

Today, the Trudeau administration consistently claims to support international institutions, the rule of international laws, the United Nations, but this open political complicity with the Trump administration on the assassination of Soleimani, shows that the Liberals simply aren’t stand up when it really matters, such as this critical turning point in the Middle East region.

The importance of speaking out politically and diplomatically against the assassination of Soleimani today is firmly rooted in protesting military policy that could lead to all out war, but also, critically, opposing the killing of Soleimani is also important as a protest against the continued normalization of U.S. extrajudicial assassinations around the world. U.S. drone strikes work in fundamental ways to undercut international law and the possibilities for a global “rules based” judicial framework, of interconnected legal accountability across borderlines, a framework that ironically the Trudeau government has spoken of generally supporting at the United Nations and beyond, as articulated many times by Liberal Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The lack of meaningful Canadian government response to the assassination of Soleimani, simply illustrates the profound hypocrisy of the Liberal government, documented extensively in the recent book The Trudeau Formula by journalist Martin Lukacs.

In failing to identify the U.S. airstrike on Iraq and the killing of Soleimani as a breach of international law, Canada supports, by default, the Trump administration’s efforts to break international law and any possibility for preventing conflict with international regulation, paving the way for future war crimes and acts of genocide to take place with impunity.

A wake up call for anti-war activists in Canada 

Importantly the air strike in Baghdad also serves as a wake-up alarm for activists around the world, as this points to a serious escalation toward a major global military conflict involving the U.S., Iran and many other powers.

In Montreal, the major anti-war mobilization in 2003 that targeted the Canadian government, demanding that Canada to not officially support the U.S. unilateral military invasion of Iraq, successfully blocked the Canadian government’s moves to engage in a major way with the U.S. war on Iraq. Although it is important to note clearly that some selective Canadian military units were on the ground in Iraq and Canadian arms companies and manufactures certainly did profit off the Iraq war, including SNC-Lavalin, all well documented by The Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade in Ottawa.

In the face of Soleimani’s killing, let us speak out against Canada’s official silence on this assassination and protest any complicity of the Canadian Liberal government in supporting the current Trump administration’s moves toward full-on military conflict with Iran and beyond.

Protests played a major role in ensuring Canada didn’t join the U.S. invasion in 2003 and activism can again play a role in blocking Canadian complicity in war policies by the Trump administration in 2019.

*

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

Stefan Christoff is a musician, community organizer and media maker in Montreal, you can find Stefan @spirodon

The 2003 “shock and awe” bombing of Iraq had finally stopped. From the balcony of my room in Baghdad’s Al Fanar Hotel, I watched U.S. Marines moving between their jeeps, armored personnel carriers, and Humvees. They had occupied the street immediately in front of the small, family-owned hotel where our Iraq Peace Team had been living for the past six months. Looking upward, a U.S. Marine could see enlarged vinyl photos of beautiful Iraqi children strung across balconies of our fifth-floor rooms. We silently stood on those balconies when the U.S. Marines arrived in Baghdad, holding signs that said “War = Terror” and “Courage for Peace, Not for War.” When she first saw the Marine’s faces, Cynthia Banas commented on how young and tired they seemed. Wearing her “War Is Not the Answer” T-shirt, she headed down the stairs to offer them bottled water.

From my balcony, I saw Cathy Breen, also a member of the Iraq Peace Team, kneeling on a large canvas artwork entrusted to us by friends from South Korea. It depicts people suffering from war. Above the people, like a sinister cloud, is a massive heap of weapons. We unrolled it the day the Marines arrived and began to “occupy” this space. Marines carefully avoided driving vehicles over it. Sometimes they would converse with us. Below, Cathy read from a small booklet of daily Scripture passages. A U.S. Marine approached her, knelt down, and apparently asked to pray with her. He placed his hands in hers.

April Hurley, of our team, is a doctor. She was greatly needed in the emergency room of a nearby hospital during the bombing. Drivers would only take her there if she was accompanied by someone they had known for a long time, and so I generally accompanied her. I’d often sit on a bench outside the emergency room while traumatized civilians rushed in with wounded and maimed survivors of the terrifying U.S. aerial bombings. When possible, Cathy Breen and I would take notes at the bedsides of patients, including children, whose bodies had been ripped apart by U.S. bombs.

The ER scenes were gruesome, bloody and utterly tragic. Yet no less unbearable and incomprehensible were the eerily quiet wards we had visited during trips to Iraq from 1996 to 2003, when Voices in the Wilderness had organized 70 delegations to defy the economic sanctions by bringing medicines and medical relief supplies to hospitals in Iraq. Across the country, Iraqi doctors told us the economic war was far worse than even the 1991 Desert Storm bombing.

In pediatrics wards, we saw infants and toddlers whose bodies were wasted from gastrointestinal diseases, cancers, respiratory infections and starvation. Limp, miserable, sometimes gasping for breath, they lay in the arms of their sorrowful mothers, and seemingly no one could stop the U.S. from punishing them to death. “Why?” mothers murmured. Sanctions forbade Iraq to sell its oil. Without oil revenues, how could they purchase desperately needed goods? Iraq’s infrastructure continued to crumble; hospitals became surreal symbols of cruelty where doctors and nurses, bereft of medicines and supplies, couldn’t heal their patients or ease their agonies.

In 1995, UN officials estimated that economic sanctions had directly contributed to the deaths of at least a half-million Iraqi children, under age 5.

The economic war continued for nearly 13 harsh and horrible years.

Kathy Kelly with children in Kabul, Afghanistan, May 2016 (Provided photo)

Shortly after the Marines arrived outside of our hotel, we began hearing ominous reports of potential humanitarian crises developing in Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities. A woman who had been in charge of food distribution for her neighborhood, under the “Oil for Food” program, showed us her carefully maintained ledger books and angrily asked how all who had depended on the monthly food basket would now feed their families. Along with food shortages, we heard alarming reports about contaminated water and a possible outbreak of cholera in Basra and Hilla. For weeks, there had been no trash removal. Bombed electrical plants and sanitation facilities had yet to be restored. Iraqis who could help restore the broken infrastructure couldn’t make it through multiple check points to reach their offices; with communication centers bombed, they couldn’t contact colleagues. If the U.S. military hadn’t yet devised a plan for emergency relief, why not temporarily entrust projects to U.N. agencies with long experience of organizing food distribution and health care delivery?

Cathy, who is a nurse, Dr. April Hurley, and Ramzi Kysia, also a member of our group, arranged a meeting with the civil and military operations center, located in the Palestine Hotel, across the street from us. An official there dismissed them as people who didn’t belong there. Before telling them to leave, he did accept a list of our concerns, written on Voices in the Wilderness stationery.

The logo for our stationery reappeared a few hours later, at the entrance to the Palestine Hotel. It was taped to the flap of a cardboard box. Surrounding the logo were seven silver bullets. Written in ball-point pen on the cardboard was a message: “Keep Out.”

In response, Ramzi Kysia wrote a press release headlined: “Heavy-handed & Hopeless, The U.S. Military Doesn’t Know What It’s Doing In Iraq.”

Image on the right: Kathy Kelly holds Shoba at the Chamin-E-Babrak refugee camp in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2014, a few days after the child had been saved from a burning tent, during a fire that destroyed much of the camp. (Abdulhai Darya)

In 2008, our group, renamed Voices for Creative Nonviolence, was beginning a walk from Chicago to the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. We asked Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid to speak at a “send-off” event. He encouraged and blessed our “Witness Against War” walk  but then surprised us by saying he had never heard us mention the war in Afghanistan, even though people there suffered terribly from aerial bombings, drone attacks, targeted assassinations, night raids and imprisonments. Returning from our walk, we began researching drone warfare, and then created an “Afghan Atrocities List,” on our website, carefully updating it each week with verifiable reports of U.S. attacks against Afghan civilians.

The following year, Joshua Brollier and I headed to Pakistan and then Afghanistan. In Kabul, Afghanistan, we were guests of a deeply respected non-governmental organization Emergency, which has a Surgical Centre for War Victims there.

Filippo, a sturdy young nurse from Italy who was close to completing three terms of service with Emergency, welcomed us. As he filled a huge backpack with medicines and supplies, he described how the hospital personnel managed to reach people in remote villages who have no access to clinics or hospitals. The trip was relatively safe since no one had ever attacked a vehicle marked with the Emergency logo. A driver would take him to one of Emergency’s 41 remote first aid clinics. From there, he would hike further up a mountainside and meet villagers awaiting him and the precious medicines he carried. In a previous visit, after he had completed a term in Afghanistan, he said people had walked four hours in the snow to come and say goodbye to him. “Yes,” he said, “I fell in love.”

How different Filippo’s report was from those compiled in our Afghan Atrocities List. The latter tells about U.S. special operations forces, some of the most highly trained warriors in the world, traveling to remote areas, bursting into homes in the middle of the night, and proceeding to lock the women in one room, handcuff or sometimes hogtie the men, rip apart closets, mattresses and furniture, and then take the men to prisons for interrogation. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch filed chilling reports about torture of Afghan prisoners held by the U.S.

In 2010, two U.S. Veterans for Peace, Ann Wright and Mike Ferner, joined me in Kabul. We visited one of the city’s largest refugee camps. People faced appalling conditions. Over a dozen, including infants, had frozen to death, their families unable to purchase fuel or adequate blankets. When the rain, sleet and snow came, the tents and huts become mired in mud. Earlier, I had met with a young girl there whose arm had been cut off, her uncle told me, by a U.S. drone attack. Her brother, whose spine was injured, huddled under a blanket, inside their tent, visibly shaking.

Opposite the sprawling refugee camp is a huge U.S. military base. Ann and Mike felt outraged over the terrible contrast between the Afghan refugee camp with a soaring population of people displaced by war, and the U.S. base housing military personnel who had ample supplies of food, water, and fuel.

Most of the funds earmarked by the U.S. for reconstruction in Afghanistan have been used to train and equip Afghan Defense and Security forces. My young friends in the Afghan Peace Volunteers (APV) were weary of war and didn’t want military training. Each of them had lost friends and family members because of the war.

In December 2015, I again visited Emergency’s Surgical Centre for War Victims in Kabul, joined by several Afghan Peace Volunteers. We donated blood and then visited with hospital personnel. “Are you still treating any victims of the U.S. bombing in Kunduz?” I asked Luca Radaelli, who coordinates Emergency’s Afghan facilities. He explained how their Kabul hospital was already full when 91 survivors of the U.S. attack on the Kunduz hospital operated by Médecins Sans Frontières were transported for five hours over rough roads to the closest place they could be treated, this surgical center. The Oct. 15 attack had killed at least 42 people, 14 of whom were hospital staff.

Kathy Kelly and Voices in the Wilderness delegation with Afghan Peace Volunteer friends in Bamyan, Afghanistan, in 2010 (Hakim Young)

Even though Kunduz hospital staff had immediately notified the U.S. military, the U.N., and the Afghan government that the U.S. was bombing their hospital, the warplane continued bombing the hospital’s ER and intensive care unit, in 15-minute intervals, for an hour and a half.

Luca introduced our small team to Khalid Ahmed, a former pharmacy student at the Kunduz hospital, who was still recovering. Khalid described the terrible night, his attempt to literally run for his life by sprinting toward the front gate, his agony when he was hit by shrapnel in his spine, and his efforts to reassemble his cell phone — guards had cautioned him to remove the batteries so that he wouldn’t be detected by aerial surveillance — so that he could give a last message to his family, as he began to lose consciousness. Fortunately, his call got through. His father’s relatives raced to the hospital’s front gate and found Khalid in a nearby ditch, unconscious but alive.

Telling his story, Khalid asked the Afghan Peace Volunteers about me. Learning I’m from the U.S., his eyes widened. “Why would your people want to do this to us?” he asks. “We were only trying to help people.”

Images of battered and destroyed hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of hospital personnel trying nevertheless to heal people and save lives, help me retain a basic truth about U.S. wars of choice: We don’t have to be this way.

Admittedly, it’s difficult to uproot entrenched systems, like the military-industrial-congressional-media-Washington, D.C., complex, which involves corporate profits and government jobs. Mainstream media seldom help us recognize ourselves as a menacing, warrior nation. Yet we must look in the mirror held up by historical circumstances if we’re ever to accomplish credible change.

The recently released “Afghanistan Papers” criticize U.S. military and elected officials for misleading the U.S. public by covering up disgraceful military failures in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials were quick to dismiss the critiques, assuring an easily distracted U.S. public that the documents won’t impact U.S. military and foreign policy. Two days later, UNICEF reported that more than 600 Afghan children had died in 2019, because of direct attacks in the war. From 2009 through 2018, almost 6,500 children lost their lives in this war.

Addressing the U.S. Senate and Congress during a visit to Washington, D.C., Pope Francis voiced a simple, conscientious question. “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?” Answering his own question, he said: “the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood.”

What are the lessons learned from the rampage, destruction and cruelty of U.S. wars? I believe the most important lessons are summed up in the quote on Cynthia Banas’s T-shirt as she delivered water to Marines in Baghdad, in April, 2003: “War Is Not the Answer”; and in an updated version of the headline Ramzi Kysia wrote that same month: “Heavy-handed & Hopeless, The U.S. Military Doesn’t Know What It’s Doing” -in Iraq, Afghanistan or any of its “forever wars.”

*

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

Kathy Kelly co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence. While in Kabul, she is a guest of the Afghan Peace Volunteers.

Featured image: Kathy Kelly and Maya Evans walk with children at the Chamin-E-Babrak refugee camp in Kabul, Afghanistan, January 2014. (Abdulhai Darya)

Some Devastating Facts About the Australian Bushfires

January 6th, 2020 by True Publica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Some Devastating Facts About the Australian Bushfires

On the surface, it made not one iota of sense.  The murder of a foreign military leader on his way from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of irresistible richness.  “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”  The words from the Pentagon seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared resist them.  “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.  The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

The killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force in a drone strike on January 3, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces, or Hash a-Shaabi and PMF Kata’ib Hezbollah, was packaged and ribboned as a matter of military necessity.  Soleimani had been, according to the Pentagon, “responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more.”  He was accused of being behind a series of attacks on coalition forces in Iraq over the last several months including attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019.

US President Donald J. Trump had thrown caution to the wind, suggesting in a briefing at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that an option on the table would be the killing of Soleimani.  The Iran hawks seemed to have his ear; others were caught off guard, preferring to keep matters more general.

A common thread running through the narrative was the certainty – unshakable, it would seem – that Soleimani was on the warpath against US interests.  The increased danger posed by the Quds Force commander were merely presumed, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was happy to do so despite not being able to “talk too much about the nature of the threats.  But the American people should know that the President’s decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives.”  (Pompeo goes on to insist that there was “active plotting” to “take big action” that would have endangered “hundreds of lives”.)  How broadly one defines the battlefield becomes relevant; the US imperium has decided that diplomatic niceties and sovereign protections for officials do not count.  The battlefield is everywhere.

Trump was far from convincing in reiterating the arguments, insisting that the general had been responsible for killing or badly wounding “thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill may more… but got caught!”  From his resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he claimed that the attack was executed “to stop a war.  We did not take action to start a war.”

Whatever the views of US officialdom, seismic shifts in the Middle East were being promised.  Iraq’s prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi demanded an emergency parliamentary session with the aim of taking “legislative steps and necessary provisions to safeguard Iraq’s dignity, security and sovereignty.”  On Sunday, the parliament did something which, ironically enough, has been a cornerstone of Iran’s policy in Iraq: the removal of US troops from Iraq.  While being a non-binding resolution, the parliament urged the prime minister to rescind the invitation extended to US forces when it was attacked by Islamic State forces in 2014.

Iranian Armed Forces’ spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi promised setting “up a plan, patiently, to respond to this terrorist act in a crushing and powerful manner”.  He also reiterated that it was the US, not Iran, who had “occupied Iraq in violation of all international rules and regulations without any coordination with the Iraqi government and without the Iraqi people’s demands.”

While the appeals to international law can seem feeble, the observation from the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnès Callamard was hard to impeach.  “The targeted killings of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Humandis are most [likely] unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal.”  To be deemed lawful, such targeting with lethal effect “can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life.”

The balance sheet for this action, then, is not a good one.  As US presidential candidate Marianne Williamson observed with crisp accuracy, the attack on Soleimani and his companions had little to do with “whether [he] was a ‘good man’ any more than it was about whether Saddam was a good man.  It’s about smart versus stupid use of military power.”

An intelligent use of military power is not in the offing, with Trump promising the targeting of 52 Iranian sites, each one representing an American hostage held in Iran at the US embassy in Tehran during November 1979.  But Twitter sprays and promises of this sort tend to lack substance and Trump is again proving to be the master of disruptive distraction rather than tangible action.

Even Israeli outlets such as Haaretz, while doffing the cap off to the idea of Soleimani as a shadowy, dangerous figure behind the slayings of Israelis “in terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and others dispatched by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force,” showed concern.  Daniel B. Shapiro even went so far as to express admiration for the operation, an “impressive” feat of logistics but found nothing of an evident strategy.  Trump’s own security advisers were caught off guard.  A certain bloodlust had taken hold.

Within Congress, the scent of a strategy did not seem to come through, despite some ghoulish cheers from the GOP.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and chairman of the House Intelligence panel, failed to notice “some broad strategy at work”.  Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin, previously acting assistant secretary of defence and CIA analyst, explained why neither Democratic or Republic presidents had ventured onto the treacherous terrain of targeting Soleimani.  “Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?”  The answer was always a resounding no.

By killing such a high ranking official of a sovereign power, the US has signalled a redrawing of accepted, and acceptable lines of engagement.  The justification was spurious, suggesting that assassination and killing in combat are not distinctions with any difference.  But perhaps most significantly of all, the killing of Soleimani will usher in the very same attacks that this decision was meant to avert even as it assists Iranian policy in expelling any vestige of US influence in Iraq and the broader Middle East.  It also signalled to Iran that abiding by agreements of any sort, including the international nuclear deal of 2015 which the US has repudiated, will be paper tigers worth shredding without sorrow.

*

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

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

In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. 

A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do. 

Let’s turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad’s international airport on Thursday. 

Let’s begin with this teleprompter reader and “presenter” from Al Jazeera:

It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald Trump. 

The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included “freezing”—polite-speak for theft—around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news “alternative fact.” 

Here’s another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for president. 

Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq and Iran were crossing the border—later drawn up by invading Brits and French—in pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can’t expect an arrogant sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram, and events dating back to 680 AD. 

Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra, Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis). 

Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions (including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural sites, which Trump said he will bomb. 

Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52 hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran’s revolution against the US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists. 

Pompeo said Trump won’t destroy Iran’s cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian infrastructure—hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques. 

Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:

Trump should be impeached—tried and imprisoned—not in response to some dreamed-up and ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father’s position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible for killing women and children. 

As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq, USA Today reports:

Iraq’s Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required “for the sake of our national sovereignty.” About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.  

No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen without a fight. However, it shouldn’t be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000 brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant. 

Never mind Schumer’s pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York didn’t go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans. 

Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their platforms being used to argue against Trump’s latest Zionist-directed insanity. 

More lies from The Washington Post, the CIA’s crown jewel of propaganda:

This is complete and utter bullshit, but I’m sure the American people will gobble it down without question. Trump’s advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder. 

Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out. 

Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now imagine the response by the “exceptional nation.”

We can’t leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for mass murder. 

Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda—in part responsible for the death of well over a million Iraqis—The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy. 

Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America—or rather the United States (the government)—is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war. This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats. 

Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in America, and the chattering pro-war class of “journalists,” and “foreign policy experts” (most former Pentagon employees). 

Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to the political wilderness. 

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

The US and Western partners are contemptuous of peace, stability, equity, justice, and the rule of law — waging war on humanity by hot and other means.

Where is the outrage in the West over the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis?

Under international law, killing them was Trump regime aggression.

US Supreme Court Justice/Chief Nuremberg Prosector Robert Jackson called aggression “the supreme international crime against peace…the greatest menace of our times.”

Time and again, I called the preemptive attack by one nation on another the highest of high crimes. All other wrongdoing pales in comparison.

Is greater Middle East war coming after Trump regime assassinations? Is this what its hardliners want?

Is Trump on board for hot war on Iran? Rhetoric isn’t policy. So for now take his bombast with a grain of salt, tweeting:

“Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites…some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats.”

Surely Iran won’t let Soleimani’s assassination go unanswered. It’ll respond in its own way at times of its own choosing — likely asymmetrically.

Clearly Iran, Iraq, and their allies want greater regional war avoided, notably not Russia and China.

On Saturday, Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi discussed Middle East developments.

According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, they “particularly focused on the aftermath of the US air strike at a Baghdad airport that resulted in deaths, including the assassination of Qassem Soleimani,” adding:

They called it “unacceptable to use force in violation of the UN Charter and that all countries must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states” — stressing that “unlawful (US) actions aggravated the situation in the region.”

They and their governments “will take joint steps (for) de-escalation.”

On the same day, Lavrov and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif spoke by phone.

They called Soleimani’s assassination “a grave violation of the fundamental standards of international law and does not contribute to resolving the complicated issues in the Middle East. Instead, it will trigger a new round of escalation in the region.”

The question is how to prevent things from spinning out of control while making the US pay a price for its aggression.

Asymmetrical and diplomatic approaches on the world stage are wisest, Iran taking the high road in sharp contrast to US contempt for peace and the rule of law.

Over time, its hostile actions make more enemies than allies, weakening the country while others are rising.

Its endless wars of aggression and by other means hasten its decline.

Like all other empires in history, it’s self-destructing by its arrogance, high crimes on the world stage, and unwillingness to change.

Some of the latest regional developments are as follows:

Iranian IRGC General Hossein Salami issued a statement, saying “the assassination of martyred General Qassem Soleimani will be followed by a strategic revenge which will definitely put an end to the US presence in the region,” adding:

Iran’s response will come “in a vast geography throughout time and with determining impacts.”

On January 4, the Pentagon’s Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve reported that Iraq’s “international zone took indirect fire that landed outside of coalition facilities and potentially harmed Iraqi civilians.”

On the same day, Saudi Al-Arabiya television said mortar fire struck areas near the Iraqi security staff facility in Nineveh province.

Sources in Tehran said US warplanes terror-bombed Al-Bukamal, Syria in Deir Ezzor province where Iranian military advisors are located.

On Saturday, rockets struck close to the US Baghdad embassy in the heavily fortified Green Zone.

On the same day, other rockets struck near the Pentagon’s Balad airbase north of Baghdad.

Southfront reported that “Shia groups in Iraq may be on the verge of launching a new insurgency against US troops in response to” Pentagon attacks on the country.

Former CIA counterterrorism/intelligence officer Philip Giraldi called Soleimani’s assassination by the Trump regime “the long-awaited beginning of the end of America’s imperial ambitions.”

US war on Iran by other means turned hot. “(I)t will not end well” for the US, said Giraldi.

As of now, the region is more greatly destabilized by what happened in the past week.

Giraldi: “No American diplomat, soldier or even tourists in the region should consider him or herself to be safe, quite the contrary. It will be an ‘open season’ on Americans.”

Calling Soleimani’s assassination a “criminal” act of state terrorism by the US, “tantamount to…war,” Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif said:

“There will be harsh revenge. Where? When? How? I do not know, but there definitely there will be some retaliation.”

Separately, a US surveillance drone was reportedly downed by Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units in Anbar province west of Baghdad.

Explosions were reported around Al-Kindi base in Mosul, Iraq where US forces are based. Iraqi Kata’ib Hezbollah warned its forces to stay clear of US bases.

Reuters reported one or more explosions heard in Baghdad. In Oom, Iran, a blood-red flag, symbolizing a call for avenging Soleimani’s assassination, was raised atop the Jamkaran mosque.

Other red flags were raised elsewhere in Iran. Mass outrage over aggressive US airstrikes continues as Iranians mourn the loss of redoubtable General Soleimani.

Will Trump’s aggression on Iraq and Iran ignite the Middle East powder keg more than already?

Near a boiling point, things could explode if US state terror on both countries escalates.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

Trump’s Mass Deception on Iran

January 6th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Virtually all politicians lie, none in memory more repeatedly and egregiously than Trump.

It’s so excessively over the top it begs the question. Is he unable to distinguish between facts and fiction or is he inherently deceptive by nature?

His Big Lies fool no one informed on what’s going on at home and abroad.

The problem is they comprise a minority, not a majority of the public — and serial lying is a moral and ethical issue, not a criminal offense unless under oath.

Make no mistake. DJT’s ordered airstrikes in Iraq, killing around 30 paramilitary fighters connected to its military, followed by the assassinations of Iranian General Soleimani and Iraqi deputy PMU leader Muhandis were US acts of war on both countries.

According to US law, an act of war means any hostile act occurring in the course of:

1. a declared war;

2. an armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

3. an armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

Under international law it’s much the same, notably a preemptive attack by one nation on the territory of the other.

It’s strictly prohibited by the UN Charter except in self-defense if attacked, clearly not the case in all US wars post-WW II, waged preemptively on nonbelligerent states — unjustifiably justified by Big Lies and deception.

According to UN General Assembly Res. 3314, aggression is defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations” — which prohibits a nation attacking another state preemptively.

Included in the UN definition is “(b)ombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.”

On Friday, Trump tweeted the following:

“General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more…but got caught (sic)!”

“He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people (sic).”

The above remarks apply to decades of US aggression — raping and destroying one country after another, polar opposite how Iran and its military operate.

Nearly the entire US political establishment and dominant media vilified Soleimani — most Dems criticizing Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraq for political reasons, most Republicans expressing support.

Even anti-war presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard said there’s “no question about (Soleimani’s) evil” — while criticizing airstrikes on Iraqi territory, saying:

“This was very clearly an act of war by this president without any kind of authorization or declaration of war from Congress, clearly violating the Constitution.”

Elizabeth Warren tweeted:

“Soleimani was a murderer (sic), responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans (sic)” — while opposing involvement in “another costly war.”

She and Joe Biden said that “no American will mourn Soleimani’s death.”

They were wrong. By email Friday to an Iranian friend in Tehran, I said the following:

My deepest condolences to General Soleimani’s family, Iran, and the Iranian people

for the Trump regime’s state-sponsored terrorism.

The only thing positive about its high crimes is they hasten the US decline.

Today I mourn with the people of Iran for what happened.

Bernie Sanders said the following in response to Soleimani’s assassination:

“Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars,” adding:

“Trump’s promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.”

While steering clear of demonizing or otherwise criticizing Soleimani, last spring Sanders falsely accused Iran of “support(ing) terrorism (sic).”

He called “prevent(ing) Iran from getting a nuclear weapon…an absolute imperative” – ignoring the Islamic Republic’s abhorrence of these weapons, wanting them eliminated everywhere, while failing to condemn nuclear armed and dangerous Israel.

He opposes establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, showing hostility toward the region’s leading proponent of peace and stability.

From his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort Friday, Trump recited a litany of Big Lies about Soleimani’s assassination he authorized, saying:

“(M)y highest and most solemn duty is the defense of our nation and its citizens” — at a time when the only US foreign threats are invented. No real ones exist, he failed to explain.

He turned truth on its head, calling Soleimani “the number-one terrorist anywhere in the world (sic).”

As US commander-in-chief, the dubious distinction applies to him. His regime and congressional accomplices share blame for endless preemptive wars on nonthreatening nations — a flagrant UN Charter violation.

Iran hasn’t attacked another country in centuries! The Islamic Republic seeks regional peace and cooperation with other nations.

Trump: “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel (sic), but we caught him in the act (sic) and terminated him.”

No evidence was cited because none exists, no “imminent…sinister attacks” on US civilian and military personnel planned. Trump lied claiming otherwise.

He falsely accused Iran’s IRGC and Quds Force Soleimani led of “target(ing), injur(ing), and murder(ing) hundreds of American civilians and servicemen.”

Nothing of the kind occurred by him or Iran in the Middle East or elsewhere — a US, NATO, Israeli specialty, not how the Islamic Republic operates.

Trump twisted reality, falsely claiming “Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terrorist plots as far away as New Delhi and London” — again no evidence cited because none exists. Trump lied, adding:

“Soleimani has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years (sic).”

“What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved (sic).”

Trump falsely claimed a US act of war as defined under international and US statute law was undertaken “to stop a war…not…start” one.

While assassinating Iranians and Iraqis, he falsely expressed support for their people the US  waged war on for decades — directly and by other means.

He falsely claimed credit for destroying “the ISIS…caliphate” the US created and supports — that Soleimani, Russian and Syrian forces smashed.

He turned truth on its head, claiming serial aggressor USA “seek(s) peace, harmony, and friendship with all of the nations of the world.”

His remarks came as the US war machine continues mass slaughter and destruction in multiple theaters — risking war with nonbelligerent Iran at the same time.

Baseball star Yogi Berra and movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn long ago commented on the hazards of making predictions — “especially about the future,” they said.

How the Trump regime intends dealing with Iran ahead is guesswork, war clearly an option — what hopefully cooler heads in Washington will prevent.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

Picture it. Macedonia. 1991-present. Macedonian politicians playing soccer against [insert any country here] and – not wanting to offend their opponent – spend the entire time playing defence. Whenever they make a save, they celebrate like they’re the best soccer team to have ever existed. When they inadvertently pass midfield, they immediately give up the ball and rush back to playing defence. They substitute different players, whose main goal is to get in the game but not to actually score. Instead of focusing on the game, they continue to scream and complain about how they should’ve been in the starting lineup. The fans are shouting “Go Macedonia! Shoot! At least TRY TO SCORE A GOAL!” and by sheer miracle, one player, actually listening to the fans, takes the ball, dekes out the other team, and scores! He is celebrated as the only Macedonian politician to ever put his team/country first but soon afterward, slinks away and completely hangs Macedonia and Macedonians out to dry.

And this is how Macedonian politicians, from both major parties, have always governed the Republic of Macedonia – with no balls. It’s painfully obvious that they should have never played the game. You can’t win by just playing defence – eventually the other team will score, and they will score a lot. And Macedonian politicians have played the game so poorly, they not only made their own team (the Republic of Macedonia) lose, they’ve taken all of Macedonia’s partitioned territory – and all Macedonians, past, present and future – down with them.

I’ve met with a lot of Macedonian leaders and politicians. They’re reading this – and they’re offended. I’m telling them here, and I’ve told them personally: Look in the mirror and see how your actions – and inaction – are taking down an entire ethnic group.

I’ve also told them that going on the offence is not offensive, especially when you have the truth on your side. (Should I apologize for my Canadian spelling of “offence” by the way? They would.) Instead of apologizing for existing, Macedonian politicians should be standing up for an entire nationality from relentless, public attacks by our oppressors – to admittedly redefine, and eradicate, what it ever meant to be a Macedonian. And this is the very raison d’etre of the Western-imposed, ironically-named “Prespa Agreement” – the illegal document that changes Macedonia’s name, and the identity and history of ALL Macedonians. By the way, Macedonian politicians would also apologize for my use of French – as that would anger their US overlords. Yes, the same ones who imposed the Prespa Disagreement.

So why would the US do such a thing? Imperialism. They want Macedonia in NATO, something that Greece (with Bulgaria hopping on board) had vowed to veto unless Macedonia gives up its name, identity and history and become “North Macedonians” from “North Macedonia” with a history beginning with the Republic of Macedonia’s independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. The terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” were handed over to Greece and Bulgaria, depending on context – as explained in multiple Articles of the 19-page document telling me who I am and who my people ever were.

After Macedonia was partitioned in 1913 among Serbia (Yugoslavia), Bulgaria, Greece and later, Albania, each country brutally suppressed the name Macedonia and executed campaigns of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous Macedonian populations. The Prespa Disagreement officially validates Greece and Bulgaria’s campaigns, as it explicitly denies the existence of Macedonians in these countries. Yes, the West wrote a handbook wiping out an entire people.

Additionally, and ironically, in 1988, Greece made a sudden, dramatic propaganda switch and began claiming that the Macedonian name belongs to them, but that Macedonian people still “don’t exist”. So then, who’s writing this op-ed…? Greece decided to go on the offence with blatant, racist lies, while Macedonian politicians cower in the corner with the truth.

Since Macedonia has been a toy thrown around by our various oppressors, let’s play a game too. It’s called “What Would You Do?” Pick your character first, you’re either a Macedonian politician or a normal person:

Question 1 – When an oppressor claims that your ancient history belongs to them, do you expose their attempts at wiping out your people? Not if you’re a Macedonian politician, you either give your history away or you do nothing to prevent it (depending on which political party you serve).

Question 2 – When a different oppressor claims that your modern history belongs to them, do you hand it over then engage in dialogue with them and try to find “common ground”?

A normal person would go on the offence and point out that these acts violate their most BASIC of human rights. They would point out the sheer hypocrisy that the West – which CLAIMS to support human rights, democracy and the rule of law – are the ones aiding our oppressors in our eradication by forcing the Prespa Disagreement on us. (The oppressor behind Door #1, by the way, is Greece, and Bulgaria is behind Door #2. Now this is a Let’s Make A Deal game that I would refuse to play).

And a normal person would say OUR NAME IS MACEDONIA and the case would be closed. I told Macedonian politicians the same, repeatedly. I also told them to not negotiate the un-negotiable. That we already have a name. That it’s not theirs to give away. And the only reason that the West was pushing for a name change was because they agreed to negotiate it.

I also tell them, repeatedly, that the forced name change can easily be reversed. An illegally-imposed law is not law. It’s that simple. The Prespa Disagreement was forced on Macedonia in violation of Macedonian and international law, in defiance of the Macedonian constitution and parliamentary rules, and by ignoring every human rights convention that guarantees the basic right of self-determination. I tell Macedonian politicians that their ridiculous claims that “reversing the name change would be difficult” only serves to prove that they’re either incompetent or complicit.

The irony is that Macedonia would have WON, if it not were for Macedonian politicians, who took it upon themselves to play games with – and lose – our name, identity and history. The vast majority of the world had recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its real name. The United Nations condemned Greece and Bulgaria for its persecution of Macedonians and demanded immediate recognition of their large Macedonian minorities. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Macedonians’ favour in numerous cases against Greece and Bulgaria. This is what happens when you show self-respect, stand up for yourself and demand support – like the Macedonian minorities do throughout the Balkans. But what did politicians from the Republic of Macedonia do when they found themselves on a breakaway, and only needing one goal to finally put the anti-Macedonian “name dispute” to an end? Instead of scoring (ending the name negotiations that never should have begun), they turned around and scored an own goal.

This brings us back to the analogies. I don’t think there’s any confusion about them (save for, possibly, the Golden Girls reference at the beginning), but I’ll quote another old lady and explain them “just for case”. (My mother-in-law’s version of “just in case”). Gjorgi Ivanov, former president of the Republic of Macedonia, was the only player to have scored a goal – and he did so at the 2018 UN General Assembly when he decried the forced renaming of Macedonia and pointed out the sheer racism and hypocrisy of the West in imposing it. Self-determination was the key, and so is the fact that Macedonia and Macedonians have always existed as such. What did he do to follow up? Nothing. He had a multitude of options in preventing the illegally-imposed name change and he could’ve pardoned Macedonian political prisoners (those who dared to defy the West in opposing the name change) but he chose not to. He chose to obey the West instead, and he left the Macedonians who stood up for Western values (by defending their own human rights), to rot in prison.

The unathletic soccer players are Macedonian politicians from SDS and DPNE (“SDSM”, the biggest traitors in Macedonian history and the US puppets who executed the Prespa Disagreement and “VMRO-DPMNE”, the faux patriots who did nothing to stop the forced name change – so neither deserves the right to use the “M” for “Macedonia”. Macedonian politicians, are you offended again? Then WAKE UP and defend Macedonia). The substitutes are whichever party is in opposition at the time. And the Golden Girls reference is the beloved TV sitcom character Sophia Petrillo, who would tell delightfully, twisted stories from her childhood (“Picture it. Sicily. 1922…”) But, if the West’s anti-Macedonian actions were applied to her, all of her stories would be changed, along with her ethnicity, memories, and very being. She would be forced to say “Picture it. Washington D.C. 2020. The year everything I ever was, was erased…” Welcome to Macedonia’s world.

*

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

Bill Nicholov is President of Macedonian Human Rights Movement International.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Upholding the History and Identity of Macedonia: Macedonian Politicians Don’t Even Know “How to Play the Game”
  • Tags:

The language employed by President Putin and his government in response to Major General Soleimani‘s assassination is unmistakably less emotional than the eulogies that he gave after the passing of Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres, and Bush Sr., but this was to be expected since Iran isn’t Russia’ “close ally” like many have falsely claimed whereas the Russian leader has been consistently seeking closer relations with “Israel” and the US since the beginning of the century and thus has an interest in openly mourning the deaths of their former leaders whom he had earlier befriended on a very close personal level.

The world has been polarized over Major General Soleimani’s assassination, with Iran’s enemies spitting on his grave while its friends are mourning his murder. Russia, meanwhile, is characteristically “balancing” between both sides per its 21st-century grand strategy whereby it isn’t expressing any emotional reaction to his killing whatsoever. This surprised many in the Alt-Media Community who have been indoctrinated with the fake news narrative that Russia and Iran are “allies” after their shared struggles in jointly defeating Daesh in Syria, which is why they eagerly expected an emotional eulogy from either President Putin or his officials.

Instead, the Russian response has been strictly factual, much to their disappointment. There are obvious reasons for this, though they’ll be explained later on in this analysis. First, however, it’s important to draw attention to the lofty praise that President Putin sincerely expressed towards Ariel Sharon, Shimon Peres, and Bush Sr. after their passing as reported by the official Kremlin website, which was entirely voluntary on his part since they weren’t sitting heads of state when they met their demise but were treasured friends who he’ll fondly remember for the rest of his life, unlike Maj. Gen. Soleimani.

Tears For “Israel” and America

Here’s what President Putin said after Ariel Sharon’s demise:

The President of Russia highly praised Ariel Sharon’s personal qualities, his activity to uphold the interests of Israel, noting the respect he enjoyed among his compatriots and internationally. Mr Putin stressed that Ariel Sharon will be remembered in Russia as a consistent supporter of friendly relations between Russia and Israel, who made a significant contribution to expanding mutually beneficial cooperation. Vladimir Putin conveyed his words of sympathy and support to Ariel Sharon’s family and the entire nation of Israel.”

Then he said this after Shimon Peres passed away:

“The message from the President of Russia says that Shimon Peres won broad respect in Israel and internationally for his many years of hard work as president and prime minister of Israel. Vladimir Putin praised Mr Peres’s personal contribution towards a peace settlement in the Middle East, which was duly appreciated by the international community as evidenced from the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him.

I was extremely lucky to have met this extraordinary man many times. And every time I admired his courage, patriotism, wisdom, vision and ability to get down to the essence of the most difficult issues. Shimon Peres will be remembered in Russia as a consistent advocate of friendly relations between Russia and Israel and a man who greatly contributed to the strengthening of bilateral cooperation,” the President wrote.

Vladimir Putin conveyed his condolences and support to the family and friends of the deceased and also to the Government and people of Israel.”

And finally, he shared this emotional tribute with Bush Jr. after Bush Sr. died:

“Dear George,

Please accept my deepest condolences over the passing of your father, former US President, George Herbert Walker Bush. An outstanding politician, he devoted his entire life to serving his country, both as a serviceman during wartime and in high-ranking public posts in peacetime. As US President during one of the most important periods of world history, he showed political wisdom and foresight, and always sought balanced decisions even in the most difficult situations.

George Bush Sr. was well aware of the importance of a constructive dialogue between the two major nuclear powers and took great efforts to strengthen Russian-American relations and cooperation in international security. I had the good fortune to have met with him several times. I recall with particular warmth him organising our meeting at your wonderful summer home in Kennebunkport.

My fellow citizens and I will always cherish the memory of George Bush Sr. In this sad time, I would like to pass worlds of heartfelt sympathy and support to all members of your large family. May you have endurance during this time of grievous and tragic loss.

Vladimir Putin”

Saluting Soleimani

Compare all of the above with the only official report of President Putin’s reaction to Maj. Gen. Soleimani’s assassination, which he expressed while talking to French President Macron sometime on Friday:

“Both sides expressed concern over the death of Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, who was killed as a result of a US strike on Baghdad’s airport. It was stated that this attack could escalate tensions in the region.”

His officials were slightly more outspoken, however, with a Foreign Ministry source telling TASS the following on Friday morning:

We consider Soleimani’s murder in a US missile strike at the suburbs of Baghdad an adventurous step that will lead to growing tensions throughout the region. Soleimani devotedly served the cause of protecting Iran’s national interests. We are offering our sincere condolences to the Iranian people.”

TASS then reported that Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova said that:

It turns out that a missile strike was carried out first, an act that is out of sync with international law was committed. And only then did they [the Americans] requested [the assessment of the events] involving the [US] Embassy. This is probably the height of cynicism, you know…To condemn attacks on their embassies, states go to the UN Security Council submitting draft statements. Washington did not appeal to the Security Council, which means that it is not interested in the world’s response [and that it is] interested in changing the balance of power in the region…That will not result in anything but escalating tensions in the region, which will be sure to affect millions of people.”

After that, the Foreign Ministry published a statement on its website which reads as follows:

We were concerned to learn of the death of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Commander Major General Qasem Soleimani in a US military strike on Baghdad airport. This step by Washington is fraught with grave consequences for the regional peace and stability. We firmly believe that such actions do not facilitate efforts to find solutions to the complicated problems that have built up in the Middle East. On the contrary, they lead to a new round of escalating tensions in the region.”

Then TASS reported on a statement by the Defense Ministry:

“Under the direct leadership of Qasem Soleimani, armed resistance against international terrorist groups ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, former name of the IS – TASS) and Al-Qaeda (outlawed in Russia) was organized in Syria and Iraq long before the so-called international coalition led by the US. His personal contribution to the fight against ISIL on the territory of Syria is undisputed. The short-sighted steps by the US, namely the killing of General Soleimani, will lead to a sharp escalation of military-political tensions in the Middle East region. It is fraught with serious negative consequences for the entire global security system.”

The outlet also said that “the statement adds that Soleimani was an experienced military commander who had significant authority and influence in the entire Middle East region.”

Afterwards, TASS reported that the Russian Foreign Ministry had this to say about Lavrov’s call with Pompeo about the matter:

“They [Lavrov and Pompeo] have discussed the situation related to the murder of Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani by the US military in an airstrike on the Baghdad airport. Lavrov stressed that the purposeful actions of a UN member state on eliminating officials of another UN member state, especially on the territory of a third sovereign state without giving it prior notice, blatantly violate the principles of international law and should be condemned.

The Russian minister has pointed out that this step by the US is fraught with serious consequences for peace and security in the region and that it does not aid the efforts on finding solutions to difficult issues accumulated in the Middle East. On the contrary, it leads to a new wave of escalation. Moscow urges Washington to abandon unlawful forceful tactics of achieving its goals on the international arena and to resolve any issues at the negotiating table.”

Explaining The Stark Contrast

From the above, it’s self-evident that Russia’s response to Maj. Gen. Soleimani’s assassination focuses on its political and legal consequences while eschewing any talk of the personal or emotional commentary which characterized President Putin’s eulogies of Sharon, Peres, and Bush Sr., and this is explained by more than just the different circumstances of their deaths. First of all, Maj. Gen. Soleimani wasn’t President Putin’s friend — in fact, the Russian leader’s spokesman flatly denied reports in December 2015 that the two secretly met earlier that month so it’s possible that they didn’t even know each other on a personal level, unlike his relationship with the three aforementioned leaders.

Speaking of which, Maj. Gen. Soleimani was purely a military leader and not a political one, meaning that he wasn’t President Putin’s counterpart, once again, unlike the three previously mentioned figures. That being the case, President Putin in principle doesn’t even feel obligated to eulogize him, but there are probably more reasons than just these “official” ones why neither he nor his representatives wanted to give the assassinated anti-terrorist mastermind an emotional Bush Sr.-like tribute. It’s taboo to talk about, but eulogizing Maj. Gen. Soleimani would reverse all of Russia’s hard-earned soft power and “deep state” inroads with “Israel” and the US in recent years which President Putin has worked tirelessly to achieve.

The Truth About Russia’s Relations With “Israel” & America

The Russian leader has consistently sought to strengthen relations with both of them since first entering the presidency slightly more than two decades ago, and he’s finally on the cusp of fulfilling what he’s set out to do on the foreign policy front for so long. “Israel” is one of Russia’s most strategic partners anywhere in the world, which the author extensively explained in his analysis from last year titled “Russia’s Middle East Strategy: ‘Balance’ vs. ‘Betrayal’“. That article cites official sources and references the author’s earlier work on the topic (one piece of which relies solely on the official Kremlin website) to prove that ties between the two are much closer than many in the Alt-Media Community feel comfortable publicly acknowledging for whatever reason.

As for the American angle to all of this, Russia is presently attempting to negotiate a “New Detente” with the US which includes potential quid pro quos (“pragmatic compromises”) between the two in Ukraine, Syria, and elsewhere in pursuit of sanctions relief and a renewed global partnership based on mutual respect of one another and their core interests. It’s not been as successful as Russia’s fast-moving rapprochement with “Israel”, but it’s nevertheless still promising and not something that Moscow will risk endangering by eulogizing Maj. Gen. Soleimani in such a way that it “provokes” the Americans into seeing Russia as an “enemy” again. All of Russia’s incessant efforts to dispel that false narrative would be for naught if its officials praised Soleimani.

“Israel” > America (For Russia)

To explain, Russia is very well aware of how its “Israeli” and American partners view Maj. Gen. Soleimani, which is why its representatives took extreme care not to praise him on a personal level or to comment on his alleged activities in Iraq where Washington claims that he organized thousands of attacks against its forces. Tel Aviv views him as the mastermind behind the IRGC and its Hezbollah ally’s involvement in Syria at the request of that country’s democratically elected and legitimate government but which the self-professed “Jewish State” regards as an “existential threat” to its “security”. As such, he was one of “Israel’s” top enemies anywhere in the world, and among the main ones that it ever faced in history.

It’s worth noting that President Putin is scheduled to visit “Israel” later this month to commemorate victims of the Holocaust. His close friend Netanyahu believes that Iran is plotting to repeat that mass killing of Jews, which he literally expressed to Putin while attending Victory Day celebrations in May 2018 as his host’s guest of honor according to the official Kremlin website, and it’s obvious after putting two and two together that “Israel” believes that the IRGC would be the vanguard of that speculative campaign. Since Maj. Gen. Solemani was the head of the IRGC’s elite Quds Force which literally translates to “Jerusalem Force”, Putin simply can’t eulogize him even if he wanted to otherwise he risks ruining Russia’s excellent relations with “Israel”.

Explaining ≠ “Excusing”

This isn’t to give “credence” to “Israel’s” claims or to “justify” its stance towards Iran, the IRGC, Hezbollah, and anything or anyone else associated with the Islamic Republic, but just to explain the sensitive political reality as understood from the perspective of Russian policymakers and thus answer the question of why their response to Maj. Gen. Solemani’s assassination eschewed any of the personal or emotional commentary that characterized President Putin’s eulogies of Sharon, Peres, and Bush. Sr. It would be one thing to “tactically taunt” the US as “negotiating leverage” by eulogizing Maj. Gen. Solemani, but it’s another entirely to do the same with “Israel”, which is a red line that Russia isn’t expected to cross and thus far hasn’t for that reason.

Considering the very warm words that President Putin sincerely expressed about Sharon, Peres, and Bush Sr. despite them not being serving leaders at the time of their passing (though nevertheless still remaining his unforgettable friends even after they left office) while simply “expressing concern” over Maj. Gen. Solemani’s assassination, it can be said that he places a much higher importance on maintaining Russia’s relations with “Israel” and the US than with Iran, though it should be said that he and his representatives definitely didn’t “disrespect” the Islamic Republic even though they might have “disappointed” it. As if there needed to be even more evidence, this further proves that Russia and Iran aren’t “allies” like was falsely claimed by many.

Baumel vs. Soleimani

To hammer home this point, it’s worthwhile to look at what President Putin said to Netanyahu while handing over the remains of Zachary Baumel last April, which Russia located, dug up, and airlifted out of Syria after this “IDF” member had been missing in action there for decades. According to the official Kremlin website, the Russian leader eulogized Baumel in the following manner:

“We are glad that he will receive proper military honours in his homeland. Another, purely humanitarian aspect of this case is that Zachary’s family will be able to bring flowers to his grave…Please, convey my best regards to the sergeant’s family.”

By contrast, President Putin didn’t express any opinion about Maj. Gen. Solemani’s burial in his homeland and the fact that his family will not be able to bring flowers to his grave. Nor, for that matter, did he “convey his best regards” to the Maj. Gen.’s family. Russia’s response to his assassination was purely political and legal because reacting otherwise would have endangered its grand strategic interests with “Israel”.

Concluding Thoughts

Maj. Gen. Soleimani wasn’t a national political leader like Sharon, Peres, and Bush. Sr. were so comparing President Putin’s eulogies of each (or lack thereof in the former’s case) is like comparing apples and oranges. Still, it’s symbolic that he had warmer words to say about the former head of the CIA who presided over the US during the USSR’s dissolution (Bush Sr.) — which he himself once called “a major geopolitical disaster of the century” according to the official Kremlin website — than the man who fought together with his military to defeat terrorism in Syria.

The message being conveyed to all parties by President Putin’s indirectly reported “expression of concern” over Maj. Gen. Soleimani’s assassination and his government’s comparatively more detailed but nevertheless purely political-legal reaction to it is that Russia respects Iran, acknowledges the important role that its murdered hero played in advancing its national interests, and is therefore “offering its sincere condolences to the Iranian people” per a Foreign Ministry source, but that politics is politics and Russia will not jeopardize its hard-earned rapprochements with “Israel” and the US by “provoking” them with a eulogy for him, even a brief Baumel-like one.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Legislators have the professional and moral obligation to protect children and support equality, but Senate Bill 2761 by Sen. Richard Pan, which would eliminate almost all vaccine medical exemptions, aims to segregate a minority of children from their right to an education. And even worse, for families who can’t afford homeschooling, SB 276 puts these vulnerable children at higher risk for repeat vaccine adverse events. 

As a pediatric intensive care nurse for 13 years, I believe in vaccinations and understand the desire for community immunity, but I have also observed many vaccine adverse events that shouldn’t be ignored any longer.

I administered vaccines without hesitation until a previously healthy teen came into our unit with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM)—brain swelling—after receiving the meningococcal vaccine earlier that week. The teen was paralyzed, in a coma, and had to be placed on a ventilator in the ICU for weeks. When I shared with the treating physician that ADEM was listed as a possible reaction to the meningococcal vaccine and asked whether we should report this to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), I was told a firm “NO” without further discussion. Three weeks later, the teen left our unit still unable to walk or talk, and there was no discussion of the possible cause or the recent vaccination.

After that, I began to notice that most doctors never asked if a new patient was recently vaccinated, despite the child’s diagnosis being listed as a possible adverse event on the vaccine insert. And if I informed the doctor that a parent mentioned their child was recently vaccinated, it was most often ignored. I have seen dozens of cases of seizures, SIDS, paralysis, diabetes, or immune system dysfunction following vaccination, yet I have only seen one report made to VAERS. It begs the question: why are these vaccine adverse events not being acknowledged or reported?

SB 2762 will herd children who were unlucky enough to suffer a vaccine reaction, but lucky enough to have a doctor acknowledge it, into a database where the state will be able to track them, freely violate their rights, and kick them out of school.

Medical professionals agree that all pharmaceuticals carry potential risks. Just as there is a small percentage of children who are allergic to penicillin, there is a percentage of children who have serious reactions after vaccination. SB 276 proponents claim only “1 in a million” reactions, but that’s referring to anaphylactic reactions, not reactions like seizures and paralysis.

Currently, in California, only less than one percent of children have vaccine medical exemptions because of a previous adverse event or family history which puts the child or sibling at risk. Under SB 276,1 as it’s currently written, there would be a narrow scope of “approved” reactions—anaphylaxis and encephalopathy—and even if a child experienced those, there is no clause for family history so siblings would have to be vaccinated as well. I can’t imagine the decision these parents will have to make, being coerced into risking repeat injury or death, just to keep their children in school.

Physicians are bound to their Hippocratic Oath to “First, do no harm,” but government officials do not carry any liability for injury or harm, nor do pharmaceutical companies since the 1986 National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act protects them. SB 2763 would be a liability-free, government-mandated system that harms these vulnerable children again.

As a nurse, I understand the desire to maintain community immunity. In 2018, the CDC reported that California has immunization rates above 96 percent for its school children, one of the highest rates in the nation. The California Department of Public Health reported 15 pediatric measles cases this year, not one related to school children with medical exemptions.

Yet SB 2764 would systematically discriminate against these children with special needs, their rights to privacy, and their free and equal education would be eliminated.

Is this discrimination of less than one percent of children with medical exemptions really a public health crisis and worth the $40 million it will cost taxpayers? The government should be focused on legitimate public health issues, like the Typhus, Typhoid Fever and TB outbreaks among our growing homeless population, rather than this minority of injured children.

*

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

Bea s a pediatric intensive care nurse in Southern California.

Featured image is from The Vaccine Reaction

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Are Vaccine Adverse Events Not Acknowledged or Reported by Medical Professionals?
  • Tags:

A remarkably non-propagandistic news-report, in the New York Times, by Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman and Mark Mazzetti, included powerful evidence that the impeachment-effort against US President Donald Trump is motivated, in part if not totally, by a desire by US Senators and Representatives — as well as by career employees of the US Departments of Defense, State Department, and other agencies regarding national defense — to increase the sales-volumes of US-made weapons to foreign countries. Whereas almost all of the contents of that article merely repeat what has already been reported, this article in the Times states repeatedly that boosting corporations such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop-Grumman, has been a major — if not the very top — motivation driving US international relations, and that at least regarding Ukraine, Trump has not been supporting, but has instead been trying to block, those weapons-sales — and creating massive enemies in the US Government as a direct consequence.

The article, issued online on Sunday, December 29th, is titled “Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion”, and it quotes many such individuals as saying that President Trump strongly opposed the sale of US weapons to Ukraine, and that,

In an Oval Office meeting on May 23, with Mr. Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney and Mr. Blair in attendance, Mr. Trump batted away assurances that [Ukraine’s current President] Mr. Zelensky was committed to confronting corruption. “They are all corrupt, they are all terrible people,” Mr. Trump said, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry.

In other words, Trump, allegedly, said that he didn’t want “terrible people” to be buying, and to receive, US-made weapons (especially not as US aid — free of charge, a gift from America’s taxpayers).

The article simply assumes that Trump was wrong that “they are all terrible people.”

Indeed, Trump himself has sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US-made weapons to the Royal Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and he refuses to back down about those sales on account of that family’s having been behind the widely-reported torture-murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and on account of their effort since 2015 to starve into submission — by bombing the food-supplies to — the Houthis in adjoining Yemen, and on account of their using US weapons in order to achieve that mass-murdering goal. Consequently, even if Trump is correct about Ukraine’s Government, he would still have a lot of explaining to do, in order to cancel congressionally authorized US weapons-sales to Ukraine but not to Saudi Arabia.

However, a very strong case can be made that he is correct about Ukraine — even if he is wrong about the Sauds. Clearly, the standard line in the US-and-allied media, that the February 2014 overthrow and replacement of Ukraine’s democratically elected Government was a ‘democratic revolution’, instead of a US coup, is based on blatant lies, and the US-imposed coup-regime there is still in force, and has been perpetrating an ethnic cleansing in order to be able to remain in power. In fact, the current Ukrainian President, Volodmyr Zelenskiy, is the self-described “business partner” of, and was brought to power by, the brutal Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, who helped the ‘former’ “Social Nationalist’ (National Socialist or Nazi) Arsen Avakov, plan and execute on 2 May 2014 the burning-alive inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, of dozens or perhaps over a hundred people who had been printing and distributing leaflets against the coup.

For the New York Times, in its ’news’-report — even this article that’s less prejudiced than most of mainstream US ’news’-reporting is — to simply presume that Trump had no valid reason for asserting what he did against Ukraine’s present (the Obama-installed) Government of Ukraine, constitutes merely anti-Trump (and pro-Obama) propaganda, on their part, and it would be more appropriate in an editorial or op-ed from them than in an alleged news-article, such as here. However, the actual news-value in that article is real. They quoted from “a piece in the conservative Washington Examiner saying that the Pentagon would pay for weapons and other military equipment for Ukraine, bringing American security aid to the country to $1.5 billion since 2014.” This was an anti-Democrat, pro-Republican, newspaper and article, saying:

Kurt Volker, the US special representative for Ukraine, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a Tuesday hearing. “I think it’s also important that Ukraine reciprocate with foreign military purchases from us as well, and I know that they intend to do so.” The assistance comes at a pivotal moment for Ukraine’s newly minted president, Volodymyr Zelensky, a popular comedian who won a landslide victory in April. Zelensky has made ending the Russian-backed insurrection in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region his top political priority.

The Times, in order to appear nonpartisan, was there citing, as authority, the anti-Trump appointee by Trump, Kurt Volker, who said “it’s also important that Ukraine reciprocate with foreign military purchases from us as well, and I know that they intend to do so.” In other words: Volker was saying that Ukraine’s Government would follow through with America’s war against Russia, next door to Ukraine, and that therefore, US taxpayers should pay for Ukraine’s purchases of US-made weapons, such as from Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. He was saying that milking US taxpayers to boost those US corporations’ profits is good, not bad. He was saying that Ukraine is on US taxpayers’ dole, as if the Obama-installed, rabidly anti-Russian, Ukrainian Government is a charity-case which is the US Government’s business (and not merely those private stockholders’ business), and that therefore, Trump should continue Obama’s policy toward Ukraine, of using Ukraine in order ultimately to place on Ukraine’s border with Russia, missiles against Moscow, right across that border. This is what the New York Times is presenting in a favorable light.

Then, the New York Times ‘news’-report said:

For a full month, the fact that Mr. Trump wanted to halt the aid remained confined primarily to a small group of officials.

That ended on July 18, when a group of top administration officials meeting on Ukraine policy — including some calling in from Kyiv — learned from a midlevel budget office official that the president had ordered the aid frozen.

“I and the others on the call sat in astonishment,” William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, testified to House investigators. “In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened.”

In other words: the Times’s further attack against Trump’s intention not to provide this US taxpayer boondoggle to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, United Technologies, and other US weapons-making corporations — a boondoggle so as to continue free supply to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime of US-made weapons against Russia — is that career US national-security personnel support and want to continue Obama’s war against Russia.

Then, the Times reported further:

“This is in America’s interest,” Mr. Bolton argued, according to one official briefed on the gathering.

“This defense relationship, we have gotten some really good benefits from it,” Mr. Esper added, noting that most of the money was being spent on military equipment made in the United States.

America’s war against Russia is designed to enrich investors in US ‘Defense’-contractors.

Isn’t it clear, then, what was actually behind 9/11, and behind America’s invasion of (instead of merely Special-Forces operation regarding) Afghanistan in 2001, and invasions of Iraq in 2003, and of Libya in 2011, and of Syria in 2012-now, etc., and coup against Ukraine in 2014?

The Times article closes with this impeach-Trump line:

But then, just as suddenly as the hold was imposed, it was lifted. Mr. Trump, apparently unwilling to wage a public battle, told Mr. Portman he would let the money go.

White House aides rushed to notify their counterparts at the Pentagon and elsewhere. The freeze had been lifted. The money could be spent. Get it out the door, they were told.

The debate would now begin as to why the hold was lifted, with Democrats confident they knew the answer.

“I have no doubt about why the president allowed the assistance to go forward,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “He got caught.”

In other words: Trump yielded to the threat of being impeached. Trump, the sales-person who had sold the Saud family hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US weaponry, recognized that unless Russia is going to be the main target of US weaponry, Trump’s own Presidency will be in jeopardy.

US foreign policies are a vast sales-promotion scheme, for America’s billionaires, who crave to control Russia, above all. Trump won’t buck them. Instead, he’s continuing Obama’s policy on Ukraine.

The Conservatives managed a landslide in the general election in the UK on 12th December 2019 by obtaining 365 seats –more than an absolute majority- and inflicting a crushing defeat on the Labour Party –that got only 203 seats. The Scottish Nationalists got 48 seats (13 more than in 2017), the Liberal Democrats obtained 11 seats, with the smaller parties receiving the reminder 23 seats. The electoral outcome was so devastating that the Conservatives have an absolute majority even if all the other parties in Westminster were to vote together against them, they would still be short by 80 votes.

Johnson’s majority is smaller than Thatcher’s in 1983, when the Conservatives got 397 seats, an absolute majority of 144 seats against all other parties combined together; and still smaller than Thatcher’s victory in 1987 with 376 seats (102 seats more than all other parties combined). Thus when contextualised over a larger time span, Johnson’s victory does not look as formidable.

The result came as shocking surprise, especially considering that Labour’s politics were dominated by the phenomenon of Jeremy Corbyn, whose popularity among Labour supporters was very high. It led to a substantial strengthening of the party whose membership high-rocketed to over 800,000 but eventually settled around 480,000 (the largest social democratic party in Europe (the German SPD has 426,000), and almost as large as the combined membership of all the other British political parties (Conservatives – 180,000 -, Scottish Nationalists – 125,534-, Liberal Democrats – 115,000 –, Greens, – 48,500 – UKIP –29,000 –, and Welsh Nationalists – 10,000 –, who, together come to slightly over 500,000).[1]

Furthermore, most British trade unions are formally affiliated to the Labour Party, and most of them, with some substantial differences on some issues –notably the replacement of Trident -, were politically aligned with Jeremy Corbyn, who they have supported solidly since his election as Labour leader in September 2015 at every national conference, defeating attempts by Labour’s Blairite right wing to replace him.

The 2019 election results mean that when compared to the 2017 general election, the Tories got 48 extra seats, whilst Labour had a massive loss of 60. However, up to the 2019 election, Labour’s vote was going up, whilst that of the Tories was gong down:

As it can bee seen from Table 1 above, between 2015 and 2017 Labour was on what seemed a solid recovery by an increase of 30 MPs and 3 million more votes. Labour under Corbyn’s leadership had to wage an electoral campaign not only virtually against all other parties, but also against its own right wing that, commanded by Peter Mandelson, (with Blair pulling the strings from behind) dedicated itself to systematically sabotage and demonize its own party, even to the point of some of its representatives openly calling to vote against their own party. An insidious and aggressive campaign of demonization by the corporate media was conducted aimed discrediting Corbyn’s Labour, vigorously supplemented this.

Under Corbyn Labour’s vote increased by about 3 million in 2017, thus denying the Tories a parliamentary majority leading the government to bribe the Northern Irish right wing Democratic Unionist Party by increasing spending in that region by £1bn, which secured Theresa May a majority.[2]

The Establishment deemed the intense media hostility both against Corbyn and his radical policies, insufficient, and therefore, it mobilised NGOs, intellectuals, academics, artists and everything else they could among respectable society. At the time, polls gave Labour 32% (May 2015) and 25% in (March 2017). Throughout that period the media and spokespersons of this broad right wing anti-Corbyn coalition, pumped the message that Corbyn was unelectable, aimed at forcing his resignation from Labour’s leadership. Faced with such hostility, it was amazing that Labour increased its vote getting 30 more MPs.

Additionally, Theresa May’s Conservative government was saddled with the issue of Brexit, since it had to confront persistent parliamentary back stabbing from the anti-European wing of her own party, especially from Boris Johnson. May lost several parliamentary votes when trying to legislate the implementation of Brexit.

All of this was taking place against the background of the 2016 referendum on the UK’s European Union membership whose result shook all parties, particularly the Conservatives, to their foundations when it was learned that nearly 52% (17,410,742 votes) voted to leave with those in favour of staying obtaining 48% (16,141,241 votes). The turnout was 72%, higher than normal.

With the exception of UKIP, most parties formally campaigned to stay, including the Conservative PM, Theresa May, but also Labour under Corbyn, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, and Greens. Both major parties, Labour and Conservatives however, contained active factions who vigorously championed Brexit. They were substantially stronger among Conservatives, were even ministers resigned in protest against the pro Remain position of Theresa May. They deployed the infamous NHS Busfalsely publicising that upon abandoning the EU Britain’s public health service would receive £350 million per week, amount they argued, Britain was sending in various payments to the EU. FullFact, a fact-checking charity, demonstrated the claim to be false and wrote

Mr Johnson’s most recent claim in the Telegraph is still inaccurate, despite his more careful wording: it doesn’t make sense to talk about taking back control over money that is never sent and never owed to anyone else.[3]

Johnson is not only a ruthless operator but also quite an unscrupulous politician. Throughout the Corbyn years, he would make outrageously inappropriate and unacceptable statements on race, women, the poor, the environment, and so forth and, was therefore, depicted as an insensitive upper-class clown. Johnson’s media appearances in TV interviews projected him as a mumbling trickster who would garble his way out of tough questions, or would just simply utter straight lies. What helped Johnson to get away with such crude lies was the relative gentility deployed by the media, that either engaged in amazing acrobatics or simply suppressed information about it, in sharp contrast with the antagonistic treatment meted out to Jeremy Corbyn and his policies.

This low-level intellectual quality and political shambles has characterised the leadership of the Conservative Party ever since John Major’s Premiership (1992-1997), who sought to salvage the nation from Thatcher’s wreckage by abolishing some of her worst and most unpopular policies such as the Poll Tax. Since then, low intellectual political level and lack of a UK economic strategy, has characterised this emerging, ever more dominant, extreme right wing, whose politics oozes racism, misogyny, and bigotry.

The Conservative politicians who today dominate the party, individuals such as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jacob Ress-Mogg, Liam Fox, and the like, are extreme pro-market libertarians, anti-statist, deeply opposed to the welfare state – which they seek to dismantle –, and almost irrationally anti EU. Some of them champion extreme ‘Christian’ values on sexual diversity, same-sex marriage and, of course, abortion. Their views have a strong resonance in the party since its membership is 71% male and 97% white.[4] Pretty much gone are the ‘one-nation’ Tories, who, broadly speaking, are pro Europe, favour industrial development instead of finance capital, believed in maintaining the bulk of the welfare state, and are modern on abortion, sexual orientation, race, and so forth.

Though, as can be gauged from the statistics discussed above, it has always been difficult for Labour to defeat the Tories’ formidable politico-electoral machinery, under Corbyn’s leadership Labour had developed not only a radical government programme of substantial structural anti-neoliberal reforms, but one that, as testified by many polls, hugely resonates with the electorate with some policies polling well above 70% support. Thus in the 2017 manifesto 79% supported that electricity and energy came from low-carbon or renewable sources, 74% were in favour of capping rent prices at the rate of inflation, 68% were in favour of increasing income tax for top 5% of earners, 63% agreed with requiring business to reserve a proportion of seats on their boards for their workers, 60% supported railways to be owned and run by the state, 57% agree with the utilities industries like energy and water companies being owned by the state, 55% supported free university tuition fees for all students, and 52% were against the UK taking part in military interventions in other countries.[5]

Corbyn added that all expansion of the health service that had taken place under Tony Blair, which allowed the private sector to run growing sections of the NHS, including full newly-built hospitals, would all, 100%, be fully nationalised. Policy that elicited enthusiastic support in British society as a whole, especially because Tory austerity had so underfunded the NHS to the point of creating a massive crisis in health provision well captured in video Corbyn issued:

In the face of all the evidence – patients being treated in hospital corridors, people dying in the back of ambulances, hospitals in dire need of repair- they are refusing to give our NHS the money it needs and needs now. The NHS will only survive if we fight for it. [6]

In fact, the impact of Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was such that Bloomberg commented Corbyn’s Labour Party will offer voters one of the most radical economic agendas anywhere in the democratic world.[7] Another Bloomberg piece reported with alarm that not only Labour 2017 was endorsed but much more was added to this agenda at the September 2019 Labour conference held in Brighton:

  • The integration of private schools into the state system;
  • A Green New Deal that sets a target of 2030 for net zero carbon emissions. (A Labour government would nationalize the country’s big energy firms, ban fracking, and take public transport into state ownership);
  • The restoration of full trade union rights and workplace rights, rolling out collective wage bargaining;
  • A 10 pound ($12.36) hourly minimum wage;
  • A 50,000 pound lump-sum payment to veterans of British nuclear tests for help with medical problems;
  • A scrappage scheme for polluting vehicles and 2.5 million interest free loans for the purchase of electronic vehicles. The construction, with private investors, of three large battery gigafactories.[8]

The titles of the two Bloomberg pieces are telling: Corbynomics’ Is More Popular Than You Thinkand, Jeremy Corbyn Is Planning a Revolution.

At media and parliamentary debates Corbyn’s performances against May and then Johnson were impressive primarily because he denounced the consequences of government austerity policies on people, society and economy. Furthermore, he toured the nation delivering rabble-rousing speeches about his progressive vision for the UK. A nationwide, strong grassroots movement developed and grew out of this. Johnson, on his part, monothematically stressed the need to ‘get Brexit done’. By the end of November, Johnson was actively shunning TV appearances, interviews and debates, and was reported in some of the media as “avoiding scrutiny”.

Politics Home revealed the mixed public sentiment by reporting on a snap poll taken after the 6th December 2019 TV debate: Corbyn had a 10 point lead on who came across as more trustworthy, and on the NHS, he won 55% to 38%, whilst Johnson won 62% to 29% on who performed best during the section of the debate around Brexit.[9] In other words, if the election were fought on Brexit, the Tories would have the edge, but if the focus was the NHS, austerity and the gross inequalities it had generated, then Labour was likely to carry the day.

Thus the British Establishment and the Tories deployed all their resources to exert pressure on Labour aimed at making Brexit the crucial issue of the coming election. The pressure was such that it affected even Corbyn’s inner circle. This served a double purpose: it distracted from Labour radical manifesto and exacerbated Labour’s internal divisions. Furthermore, by Labour adopting a pro Remain position, after the 2016 referendum, depicted Labour as disrespecting the democratic decision of the British people. The Tories’ calculation turned out to be correct: making Brexit the central election issue would give them a crucial edge. The crucial Establishment’s lever to pressurise Corbyn were the Labour MPs, who were overwhelmingly anti Corbyn.

From the moment Corbyn had been elected Labour MPs had sought to oust him, even going for a parliamentary coup by passing a no confidence resolution against the Labour leader in 2016, which involved even Labour’s Deputy Leader, Tom Watson. The coup involved mass resignations by Labour right-wingers from the broad-based Shadow Cabinet that Corbyn had established to include all shades of opinions in the party. They blamed Corbyn for the Brexit vote. Media reports at the time suggested that about 80% of the Labour MPs were in the plot. In fact, 172 MPs voted for a no-confidence motion against Corbyn, whilst only 40 supported him.[10] This not only triggered a leadership election with Labour’s right seeking to prevent Corbyn from being on the ballot by an unsuccessful High Court action. The ensuing leadership election saw a Corbyn victory with a larger majority.

This breed of Labour MPs was the result of 10 years of Blair leadership who not only shifted Labour drastically to the right (and to the extreme right on international issues as witnessed by the Iraq War) but who also implemented severe attacks on the party’s internal democracy, which included favouring Labour candidates of a right wing, Blairite, persuasion. Corbyn, therefore, had to contend with this toxic aspect of “Blair’s legacy.” A poignant manifestation of this ‘legacy’ was the attitude adopted by the majority Labour parliamentary party on the renewal of the Trident submarine nuclear military system. Labour’s formal position was in support but Corbyn sought a compromise of retaining submarines but without nuclear weapons. The outcome was 140 Labour MPs voted with the Conservative government to renew Trident, 47 joined Corbyn voting against, while 43 abstained. Thus, though Corbyn’s leadership had strong support within the party’s grassroots, the bourgeoisie, the Conservatives and the Establishment had in Labour MPs a formidable ally.

This pressure was not confined to statements alone but led 8 right wing Labour MPs, headed by Black MP, Chuka Umunna, to even break with the party, thus deliberately jeopardising Labour’s electoral chances. The bases of their defection was Corbyn’s supposed inability to stop Brexit and, for good measure, they threw in the well publicised media-led campaign of Labour being anti-Semitic with Corbyn being unable or unwilling to tackle it.[11] When the ‘rebels’ announced more mass defections to follow, this right wing pressure did the trick. They immediately got Tony Blair’s full endorsement.

Right wing Labour MPs were also able to mobilise progressive individuals in the parliamentary party, the unions, and among the Labour party membership, especially in the South East, to campaign for Labour to go for a second referendum. They eventually managed to saddle Corbyn with such a policy. Thus Corbyn went into the 2019 election with the formal position of a second referendum, which would ask the electorate whether to accept or reject the first referendum. On November 22nd, Corbyn announced:

This will be a trade deal with Europe or remaining in the EU – that will be the choice that will be put before the British people within 6 months. Any other option will require years of negotiations either with the EU or the USA.

Then, he added, “I will adopt, if I am Prime Minister at the time, a neutral stance so I can credibly carry out the result of that to bring our communities and country together rather than continuing endless debate about the EU and Brexit.” This happened on the Question Time national TV programme on 22nd November 2019, that is, days before the general election. The Tories, Johnson and the media quickly capitalised on it. With this statement, Corbyn unwittingly, made Brexit the central issue of the coming election. Thus paradoxically, in order to unite the party, he ended up alienating a crucial part of his electoral base. The media went into full anti-Corbyn gear, the ground for which had been well prepared.

Since his surprising election in 2016, Corbyn has faced a relentless, vicious and unscrupulous media campaign against him and his project. Anti-Corbyn media bias was such that led scholars in the LSE to conduct a study, which concluded

… Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti-Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.”[12]

Prize winner, journalist Jonathan Cook, highlighted the specific role of the BBC in this bias by looking at the work of the Media Reform Coalition and Birbeck, University of London, whose study argued that “imbalanced reporting” has become so grave that it poses a serious threat to the democratic process.” Their study reveals that

“…the BBC is failing to make even the most minimal efforts at even-handedness. The issues it uses to frame its news coverage are nearly five times more likely to present Corbyn in a negative light. Even worse, BBC news headlines during the study period failed to frame any story in a positive light for Corbyn.”[13]

Remember that the BBC, unlike the press, is supposed to abide by strict rules of impartiality, and that its early evening news programme is probably the single most influential source of news for most Britons.”

Media bias against Corbyn never stopped and was relentless even up to election’s eve, when the charge of Labour being anti-Semitic was raised at the last minute by none other than the Archbishop of Canterbury, UK’s maximum religious authority, who on 26th November 2019, publicly endorsed and supported UK’s Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, who had said that Jews were “gripped with anxiety” at the prospect of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. The Archbishop, Justin Welby, said that Mirvis’ warning should ‘alert us to the deep sense of insecurity and fear felt by many British Jews’. The charges that under Corbyn anti-Semitism had flourished had by then at least 2 years of longevity.

The Media Reform Group also conducted a study on how anti-Semitism was also used by the media to demonise Corbyn and the Labour programme associated with him. Their report, Labour, Antisemitism and the News. A disinformation paradigm, states

The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Following extensive case study research, we identified myriad inaccuracies and distortions in online and television news including marked skews in sourcing, omission of essential context or right of reply, misquotation, and false assertions made either by journalists themselves or sources whose contentious claims were neither challenged nor countered. Overall, our findings were consistent with a disinformation paradigm.”[14]

As it happened, in the 2019 election the Conservatives won 54 seats from Labour, but overall, Labour lost 60. It is very telling that only 8 out of those 60 constituencies had voted Remain, whilst the reminder 52 had voted Brexit in the 2016 referendum, with percentages going from 50.1% (Colne Valley) to 72.1% (Stoke-on-Trent North).[15]Labour lost seats that it had held since 1919, 1922, 1932, 1935, 1945 and 1970, so it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that all of the sudden, Labour working class bastions had converted to the brand of Conservatism espoused by Boris Johnson. The only explanation is that a substantial proportion of people in these bastions favoured Brexit and found Labour’s position of another referendum unacceptable since it made their vote for the first referendum worthless.

For many, poverty, destitution, unemployment, homelessness and other social ills in these Labour heartlands were closely associated to the policy of open immigration resulting from Britain’s membership of the European Union. This has been the persistent message to the nation from Conservative leaders, whether in or out of office, since Thatcher: unless immigration is severely curved, the UK and its citizens would continue to suffer these ills and, in the last years, they have made strenuous efforts to link immigration to terrorism. Besides, there is no doubt that the pro Brexit referendum campaign intensified racism, bigotry and xenophobia to high levels: according to official figures, recorded hate crime rose sharply by 57% between 2014-15 and 2016-17, with 87% motivated by racial hatred.[16]

Additionally, as can be seen from the table below, in the 2019 election Labour lost 2 million votes to pro-remain parties (Liberal Democrats, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, Greens, and pro-remain in the North of Ireland):

So, what now? Which way forward for the Labour movement in the UK after the crashing defeat of Corbyn, the most radical and most progressive political leadership to emerge in the UK and Europe? Corbynism was political phenomenon that developed and was equipped with the formidable political armoury against neoliberalism, inequality and lack of opportunities, racism, xenophobia and war. Is it all over for Corbyn’s manifesto?

Conclusion

As part of the necessary process of reflection to explain and absorb the lessons emanating from the election defeat, two schools of thought are emerging: on the one hand, the broad anti-Corbyn front that goes from openly fascist currents, the Establishment, the Tories, UKIP, Liberal Democrats, Scottish Nationalists, most of the corporate media, Labour’s right wing and even minority sections of the so-called Labour left moderates, and on the other, the vigorous social and political movement labelled Corbynism which includes Labour’s grassroots, most of the trade unions and the working class it organises, women, the poor and the marginalised, pensioners, the disabled, ethnic communities, the LGBT community, and all those who were included in Corbyn’s oft-repeated message “for the many, not the few”.

Their concrete interests and aspirations were incorporated in Corbyn’s radical manifesto, a vision of a better country so as to build a better world for them, for their children and for their children’s children, programme that enjoys majority support in society.[17]

It is this that the reactionary anti-Corbyn front wishes to destroy. Within Labour’s Right, the key individual is Tony Blair, who has vigorously campaigned against Corbyn and his politics ever since the latter’s election to the party’s leadership in 2016. Blair did this also in 2019 when, at a well-publicised conference hosted by Reuters on 25th November, though he criticised the Tories, said “the Labour party has been taken over by left wing populism”, thus deliberately undermining the party’s leadership and its electoral chances.

No sooner had the elections results been known that media pundits, relishing in his defeat, built up pressure for Jeremy Corbyn to resign. One of the first to hit the waves unsurprisingly wasTony Blair who made an impassionate appeal to Labour to drastically change course and abandon its radical left wing ideology, and take the party to the “centre”. For Blair the central issue is not Brexit but the fact that “The far left that has taken over the Labour party [and] If they’re in charge of the Labour party going forward, then I think the Labour party is finished.”[18] Though he avoided attacking Corbyn personally, Blair savaged Corbynism:

“…politically people saw him as fundamentally opposing what Britain and Western countries stand for, he personified politically an idea, a brand of quasi revolutionary socialism, mixing far-left economic policy with deep hostility to Western foreign policy which never has appealed traditional Labour voters, never will appeal to them and represented for them a combination of misguided ideology and terminal ineptitude that they found insulting.”[19]

This was immediately supported by a declaration of war against Corbyn’s Labour from Blair’s Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell, the media mastermind of the strategy behind legitimising the war against Iraq, who fired from the hip against Corbynism, calling on disgruntled and disillusioned Labour supporters to re-join the party to drive out “the left wing factions” that currently had the party’s leadership. The Express’s headline is indeed eloquent of what this means: Labour civil war:Campbell leads charge of 100,000 moderates in bid to crush Team Corbyn.[20]

On the other hand, there is the overwhelming majority of Labour membership, even many of those who may have voted for Brexit, who are unlikely to support a shift to the right by Labour as advocated by Blair et al. The shadow Business Secretary and MP, 40 year-old Rebecca Long-Bailey, a strong and loyal Corbynista, is being tipped as a potential successor to Jeremy Corbyn. She, or any other left wing Labour candidate for the leadership, has the enormous advantage of the powerful grassroots progressive and radical movement Jeremy Corbyn created during his leadership.

This movement can gather strength from the substantial popularity of the policies contained in Labour’s Manifesto. In this regard, the stance the trade unions, especially UNITE (the largest and most left wing union in the UK), take with regards to who to support to succeed Corbyn will be crucial. Though it is too premature to say too much about the next Labour leadership, there are two certainties: Labour’s grassroots will not support a Blairite to replace Jeremy and, they will resist shifting the party to the right. Perhaps, the biggest threat may come from a soft-left candidate behind whom Labour’s right will unite.

Labour’s right key argument to shift the party to the “centre’ is predicated on the fallacious argument of the lack of “electability” of Corbyn type of policies. The fact that in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections, the Liberal Democrats, the “centrist” party par excellence, performed very poorly, confirms this is a fallacy. A positive sign that Labour can resist Blair’s push to the right is the fact that of the 25 newly elected Labour MPs, 20 are women, 16 are solidly left wing, and 12 are BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Labour), showing that despite the electoral defeat, Labour’s left has been strengthened at the level of the parliamentarians, thus weakening Labour’s right. Furthermore, “Labour now has a majority female parliamentary party.”[21]

The battle lines have been drawn and the defence of Corbyn’s legacy is not just a matter of romantic adherence to purist or radical principles, though principles are certainly involved. His policies will be the essential platform from which to organise the resistance against Johnson’s nasty and ominous neoliberal offensive. Shifting the Labour party to the right will substantially contribute to make its implementation easier. Johnson’s pronouncements to unite the nation and move forward, giving reassurances about economic regeneration and more funding for social services and the NHS are just fakery. He is representative a new breed of hard-right Conservative MPs that have much more in common with Donald Trump than with Thatcher thus, we must expect the worst.

A special report (byThe Guardian’s ‘Long Read’) shows the long-standing and strong connection between key ministers, Conservative politicians, including Johnson himself, and extreme US right wing thinktanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Heritage Foundation, all under the very powerful and highly influential Atlas Network umbrella. In fact, 14 of the 20+ Johnson’s July cabinet ministers were “alumni of IEA initiatives”, (including the ministers responsible for foreign affairs, interior, exchequer, trade, health and so forth). Not only these, and plenty of other thinktanks enjoying multimillionaire funding, played a crucial role in securing Brexit, but the report alleges that “The organisations involved in this collaboration between the US and UK radical right are partners in a global coalition of more than 450 thinktanks and campaign groups called the Atlas Network, which has its headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.”[22] A post-Brexit Free Trade Agreement with the US, and “opening up the NHS to foreign competition” are their policy flagships. Furthermore, Johnson will slavishly support any US military adventure anywhere in the world. Thus, to expect moderation from the Johnson government would be seriously misguided.

Of all the UK political parties, only Labour has the strength, the social base, the links with social organizations of the people (trade unions and others) and, provided it maintains its adherence to the Manifesto policies, the capacity to build a formidable political and social coalition to mount meaningful resistance to Johnson’s hard neoliberal government programme. In fact, though discussing what went wrong in the election is important and necessary, a much more urgent task is to start laying the foundations for such a coalition, building on Corbyn’s political and moral legacy.

There are two promising signs that this is more than possible: (a) one week after the launch of Labour’s 2019 manifesto, polls showed majority support for all its key policies, except free broadband (47%) and a referendum of a Labour Brexit (42%); and (b) at the 2019 election Labour got the votes of 57% among those in the age of 18-24, 55% among the 25-34, and 45% among the 35-44. With the Tories having substantially lower percentages in those categories (19%, 23%, and 30%, respectively).[23] There is no question that the potential in society to oppose Tory austerity and Johnson’s intensification of it, is enormous, especially when considering that these percentages resulted from respondents during a skewed election on Brexit.

Finally, it would be seriously misconceived to believe that these developments are unique and due to British peculiarities. As discussed above, there is a powerful transatlantic juggernaut, endowed with almost infinite resources, equipped with self-contained dogmas, with a huge media-driven capacity to persuade and influence political leaders, intellectuals, academics and public opinion in general, that can be unleashed just about anywhere in the planet, and certainly anywhere in Europe. In more that one sense, the defense of Corbyn’s legacy is both a British and a pan-European task.

*

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

Notes

[1] Data from the UK Parliament (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125– visited 19th December 2019).

[2] BBC News, 26th June 2018, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44397110 (visited 23rd December 2019).

[3] FullFact, £350 million EU claim a clear misuse of official statistics – In brief, 19th Sept 2017 (https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/– visited 20th December 2019).

[4] Anna Soubry, “The hard right has captured my old party – and Boris Johnson’s victory proves it“, The Guardian, 23rd July 2019 (Soubry was Tory MP for Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire).

[5] YouGov, Eurotrack: Corbyn’s policies popular in Europe and the UK, 9th January 2019 (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/01/09/eurotrack-corbyns-policies-popular-europe-and-uk– visited 20th December 2019).

[6] See details of the Tory, austerity-driven, crisis generated in the NHS in Steven Hopkins, “NHS March In London Sees Jeremy Corbyn Blame ‘Tories And Austerity For Crisis’”, The Huffington Post, 3, February 2018.

[7] Matthew Goodwin, “Corbynomics’ Is More Popular Than You Think”, Bloomberg, 2nd October 2019.

[8] Therese Raphael, “Jeremy Corbyn Is Planning a Revolution”, Bloomberg, 27 September 2019.

[9] Alain Tolhusrt, “Boris Johnson edges win in final TV debate but Jeremy Corbyn seen as most trustworthy, PoliticsHome, 6 December 2019 (https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/108431/boris-johnson-edges-win-final– visited 20th December 2019)

[10] Labour MPs pass no-confidence motion in Jeremy Corbyn, BBC News, 28th June 2016, (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458- visited 21st December 2019).

[11] Three MPs also defected from the Conservative party on the issue of Brexit,, who, together with the 8 Labour MPs, set up an independent parliamentary group; Umunna joined the Liberal Democrats and became a candidate in the 2019 election; every one of these defectors lost their seats.

[12] Bart Cammaerts, Brooks DeCillia, João Magalhães and César Jimenez-Martínez, “Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British press, From Watchdog to Attackdog”, LSE, 1st July 2016 (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67211/1/CAmmaerts_Journalistic%20representations%20of%20Jeremy%20Corbyn_Author_2016.pdf– visited 19th December 2019)

[13] Jonathan Cook, “Study exposes BBC’s deep anti-Corbyn bias”, Jonathan Cook Blog, 29th July 2016 (https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-07-29/study-exposes-bbcs-deep-anti-corbyn-bias/– visited 21st December 2019).

[14] Dr. Justin Schlosberg and Laura Laker, Labour, Antisemitism and the News. A disinformation paradigm, Media Reform Coalition, September 2018 (https://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Labour-anti-semitism-and-the-news-EXEC-SUM-FINAL-PROOFED.pdf– visited 21st December 2019).

[15] Elliot Chappell, “The 60 seats Labour lost in the 2019 general election”, Labour List, 13th December 2019 (https://labourlist.org/2019/12/the-60-seats-labour-lost-in-the-2019-general-election/– visited 21st December 2019).

[16] Greg Grebby, “Brexit and rising racism in Britain showed we must challenge misconceptions about Immigration and Multiculturalism”, The Huffington Post, 14th January 2019 (https://www.theredcard.org/blog/2019/1/14/brexit-and-rising-racism-in-britain-showed-we-must-challenge-misconceptions-about-immigration-and-multiculturalism– visited 21st December 2019).

[17] See 2019 Labour’s Manifesto It’s time for Real Change, https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/ (visited 22nd December 2019); Campbell was expelled from Labour in the May 2019 municipal elections for publicly calling to vote against his own party.

[18] Rajeev Syal,“Ditch Corbyn’s ‘misguided ideology’, Tony Blair urges Labour”, The Guardian, 18th December 2019, (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/18/tony-blair-urges-labour-to-ditch-jeremy-corbyn-misguided-ideology– visited 22nd December 2019).

[19] The Sun, 18th December 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdaGBHlRE4 (visited 22nd December 2019)

[20] Express, 15th December 2019 (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1217526/labour-party-Alastair-Campbell-election-result-jeremy-corbyn-left-wing-tony-blair?int_source=traffic.outbrain&int_medium=traffic.outbrain&int_term=traffic.outbrain&int_content=traffic.outbrain&int_campaign=traffic.outbrain– visited 22nd December 2019).

[21] Sienna Rodgers, “Labour gained just one seat – but many more fresh faces”, Labour List, 16th December 2019 (https://labourlist.org/2019/12/labour-gained-just-one-seat-but-many-more-fresh-faces/– visited 23rd December 2019).

[22] Felicity Lawrence et al, “How the right’s radical thinktanks reshaped the Conservative party”, The Guardian, 29th November 2019, (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/rightwing-thinktank-conservative-boris-johnson-brexit-atlas-network– visited 23rd December 2019); this report ought to be widely circulated and translated into every European language.

[23] Lord Ashcroft, “How Britain voted and why: My 2019 general election post-vote poll”, Lord Ashcroft Polls, 13th December 2019 (https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/12/how-britain-voted-and-why-my-2019-general-election-post-vote-poll/?fbclid=IwAR0ogQafdFbtoYB5BG7UdHZbq9FhSLPMTMsaF2h4fHsHZcVb1oTriG_vnck (visited 23rd December 2019).

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Brexit Produced the Largest Conservative Majority Since Thatcher

War Again on the Front Burner

January 5th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The nonsensical statement below from the Pentagon announcing that the US government has committed an act of war against Iran should frighten everyone:

“At the direction of the president, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

“The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

Murdering a high-ranking official of a government is an act of war.  It is impossible for an act of war to protect US personnel abroad.

It is impossible for an act of war against Iran to deter future Iranian attack plans.  Where there was no Iranian attack plan, there now is in response to the murder of Soleimani.

Committing an act of war does not “protect our people and our interests.”  It jeopardizes them.

How is it possible for the Pentagon to issue such a nonsensical laughable justification for murdering a top official of another country?  If murdering Soleimani was a “decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad,” why were US citizens and embassy personnel told to depart the Middle East for their safety?

Where was Trump’s mind? Just as he is emerging from the impeachment hoax, why did he commit an impeachable act?  Trump attacked another country without Congressional authorization.  He thumbed his nose at Congress and the law.  It is the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the United States, not break them.  The Democrats now have a real impeachable offense to hang around Trump’s neck.

But they will not make us of it. Trump struck down Soleimani, because that is what Netanyahu wanted. The main leaders of the impeachment hoax are Jews, and they are not going to line up against Israel.  Adam Schiff, for example, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is leading the impeachment, gave his approval to Soleimani’s murder when he tweeted that Suleimani “was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him.”

Israel is the main culprit in this crime. Trump is a secondary culprit. Soleimani himself bears responsibility.  He should have known that he was a target and not exposed himself so carelessly.  The Russian government also bears responsibility.  Russia, China and Iran should long ago have formed a highly visible alliance.  Such an alliance would have prevented the crazy and irresponsible act that Israel manuevered Trump into committing.  But Putin doesn’t want war, and apparently historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war. Thus Putin avoids alliances, taking his que instead from American libertarians who say that free trade is the basis of peace. Strength is the guarantor of peace, and strength rests in a powerful alliance against US/Israeli aggression.

Iran’s response was predictable and unfortunate.  Iran declared it will take revenge, and most likely will.  Iran’s revenge will give Israel the war it wants between the US and Iran.

Iran would have done better to take its revenge and deny responsibility.

Idiot American politicians, one of whom could end up as President, are furthering the cause of war by working up American patriotism with claims, false of course, that Iran is a “terrorist state” determined to harm America, that Iran is responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans, and so forth.

We have heard all of this before.  It is the US that is the terrorist state, having destroyed in whole or part seven Muslim countries in the 21st century, producing millions of deaths, injuries, and dispossessed and displaced peoples.  I knew it was going to get worse when the Russian government permitted Israel to continue attacking Syrian targets after Russia had rescued Syria from Washington’s proxy army.  

As long as Israel runs US foreign policy in Israel’s interest, and as long as “non-compliant” countries are content for Washington to knock them off one by one, war will continue to be our future.

Update:  Washington decided to further inflame the situation with another strike.

*

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

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

American Terrorism

January 5th, 2020 by Donald Monaco

The ‘war on terrorism’ is a fraud.  From its inception, America’s latest war was designed to replace the ‘war on communism’ as a pretext for global interventionism.  Furthermore, the ‘war on terrorism’ is a ‘war of terrorism’ being fought to dismember nation states and create ethnically, tribally, or religiously fragmented countries incapable of mounting sustained national resistance to imperialism.

In order to conduct a ‘war on terrorism’ the United States needs to deploy various terrorists.  The terror brigades consist of both proxy forces and direct military deployments.  In fact, the use of proxy forces justifies the intervention of conventional military troops.

To advance its hegemonic agenda, the United States has consistently resorted to terror operations against enemy states.  Two prominent examples are in order.  In 1979 the CIA launched  ‘Operation Cyclone’ to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan creating Al Qaeda as part of its proxy force.  In 2012 the CIA implemented  ‘Operation Timber Sycamore’ by using an offshoot of Al Qaeda to attack the Assad government in Syria.  That group of killers evolved from an organization known as Al Qaeda in Iraq to eventually become the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

To combat Al Qaeda and its step-child ISIS, the United States deployed its military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to fight the very terrorists it had created.  To add to the deception, the United States has played a double game of attacking the terrorists in some places (Mosul, Iraq) while supporting them in other places (Idlib, Syria), all the while conveniently setting up permanent military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia to protect its empire, its access to oil and the apartheid State of Israel.

A relevant political axiom can be deduced from even a cursory study of this history, namely, that wherever there is oppression there will be resistance.  As a consequence of U.S. invasions of various countries, wars of resistance quickly developed that had to be neutralized by counter-insurgency programs.  Counter-insurgency operations are a form of covert warfare that involve the use of death squads, unlawful detentions, extraordinary renditions, torture, black sites, targeted assassinations and drone warfare.  Counter-insurgency operations are conducted by U.S. special forces under the direction of the United States Special Operations Command and the CIA.  These operations produce atrocities that, when revealed, create controversy by blatantly contradicting those principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law that constitute the foundation of human rights.

The most recent controversy involves Navy Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher who commanded a group of Navy Seals in Iraq. In 2018, Gallagher stood accused by his own troops of committing war crimes.  In a New York Times documentary report  seven Navy Seals under Gallagher’s command described him as a “psychotic”, “freaking evil”, “toxic” and “perfectly capable of killing anybody who was moving.”  He was formally accused by the Navy of fatally stabbing a captive prisoner and then posing with fellow Seals for a photograph with the dead teenager as a trophy.  Additional accusations were leveled against Gallagher that documented his involvement in the shooting of Iraqi civilians including a young girl, an elderly man and four women.

He was tried by a military court and exonerated of all charges involving the killings of Iraqi civilians and of killing the detainee but convicted and sentenced to four months of detention for posing in a photograph with the dead prisoner. Not without precedent, Donald Trump acting as commander-and-chief, ordered the military to remove Gallagher from a Navy prison and place him in a less restrictive house detention at a Marine corps base.  Richard Nixon issued a similar order for Army lieutenant William Calley of My Lia massacre fame in 1971.

click image right to order Donald Monaco’s book

Gallagher was also stripped of his Trident Pin, a Navy Seal of Honor as an additional punishment only to have the honor re-instated by President Trump who hosted Gallagher and his wife at his Mar-a-Lago estate on December 23, 2019.  Furthermore, Secretary of Defense and former lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, Mark Esper, demanded the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spence in November 2019 because the latter had the temerity to protest Trump’s intervention and reversal of the punishment, such that it was, meted out to Gallagher for his violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The logic is clear.  The United States exonerates its war criminals but punishes those who reveal war crimes, like Chelsea Manning.  It protects torturers but imprisons those who oppose torture, like CIA case officer John Kiriakou. It promotes the lies of empire but persecutes those who expose those lies, like Julian Assange.  The logic reinforces a cult of military heroism.  The cult of the military hero is, in actuality, the cult of the American terrorist.

The cult is celebrated throughout American culture as evidenced by the Clint Eastwood movie ‘American Sniper’ that depicted Navy Seal Chris Kyle as a patriotic warrior who was supposedly distressed because of having killed an ‘enemy combatant’ who was a woman with a child.  The combatants were indistinguishable from Iraqi civilians.  Hence the moral dilemma.  Eastwood took dramatic license by promoting the myth of moral anguish as the real life sniper never admitted any guilt or regret for what he had done.  The 2014 film was wildly successful in the USA because it depicted the anguish of an American warrior placed in impossible circumstances confronting a nameless, faceless enemy.

The suffering of the Iraqi people who were subjected to horrific levels of violence including bombings, invasion, occupation, sectarian strife and a horrendous destruction of their country that reduced conditions of life to a pre-industrial age as the result of two sequential wars is of no consequence in the imperial heartland.

The film ignores the genuine moral and legal dilemmas created by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neoconservative minions who engaged in deliberate deception to justify the invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq thereby provoking a popular resistance or peoples war that could only be defeated by making war on the people, namely, by waging genocidal war as the United States had done in Vietnam.  Hence the deployment of snipers, torturers and death squads to murder insurgents and civilians alike in the ‘free fire zones’ that existed in both conflicts.

Violent repression always creates conditions that generate atrocities and the war planners in the Pentagon know this from their experience in Vietnam.  For the war planners, a peoples guerrilla war is a pernicious form of popular resistance that must be met by counter-insurgency.  Counter-insurgency is a sanitized term for genocidal war as exemplified by the CIA’s ‘Phoenix Program’.  If the combatants cannot be distinguished from an occupied people, or worse, if the combatants have the support of the people, then both must die.  And die they did when the United States unleased a vicious sectarian war in Iraq by implementation of the ‘Salvador Option’.

William Calley, Chris Kyle, Edward Gallagher and countless other frontline troops who fought beside them and killed with impunity for imperialism are mere cogs in the American war machine.  They follow the orders of generals who run the wars.  This fact does not relieve them of responsibility for their actions as articulated in the Nuremberg Principles. It extends responsibility up the chain of command.  Earle Wheeler, William Westmoreland, Creighton Abrams, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, David Petraeus, Tommy Franks and James Mattis, to name but a few who directed wars in Vietnam and Iraq, are all celebrated as heroes in the American military pantheon but they are war criminals nonetheless because they conducted preemptive wars of aggression.

And it should never be forgotten that it was Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush and their Secretaries of Defense including Robert McNamara, Melvin Laird, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld who gave the ultimate orders to fight in Vietnam and Iraq thereby bearing the ultimate responsibility for these wars.

All did so by deception.  Johnson and McNamara lied about the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident to open the floodgates of the Vietnam war; Nixon promised to ‘bring peace with honor in Vietnam’ but acted to expand the war to Laos and Cambodia; Bush Sr. gave Saddam Hussein a green light to invade Kuwait only to concoct the fiction that Iraq intended to invade Saudi Arabia and, with the help of the Hill and Knowlton advertising agency, that Iraqi troops were ripping babies out of incubators in Kuwait, to bring the United States into Gulf War I; and Bush Jr., Cheney and Rumsfeld fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda to launch ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ and the 2003 Iraq war.

Presidents Clinton, Obama and Trump continued the prosecution of America’s wars using equally false pretexts in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and beyond.

These deceptions should be kept firmly in mind as Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo blame Iran for instigating protests at the heavily fortified U.S. embassy in Baghdad, dispatch additional troops to the Middle East and order the drone assassination of Iranian General Qassim Suleimani in Iraq thereby bringing the United States to the brink of a potentially catastrophic war with Iran.

The historical pattern is painfully evident for all who wish to see.  Permanent war continues to be waged by the American warfare state on behalf of the American plutocracy.

This is the face of American imperialism, American militarism and American war criminality.  It is the undisguised face of American terrorism wrapped within the flag of American patriotism, a flag that was tweeted without comment by Trump when he ordered the drone assassination of General Suleimani.  A picture, as is said, is worth a thousand words, and in this case, the words are obscene.

Here, it is instructive to remember the old adage that ‘patriotism is the first refuge of a fool and the last refuge of a scoundrel’ when challenging this country’s second most potent secular religion, the worship of mammon being its first.  It was, after all, Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name, Mark Twain who craftly wrote that “we can just have our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and crossbones” to place upon the soil of the Philippines after the U.S. invasion in 1899, thereby identifying American piracy with a proper insignia.

Until, and unless, the cult of the American war hero and its militaristic ideology are confronted by an uncompromising anti-imperialist, anti-war movement , the American warfare state will continue to fight ‘wars of terror’ whose ultimate logic will be the destruction of the human species.

*

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

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

The Coming Attack on Iran?

January 5th, 2020 by Prince Kapone

According to Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), all signatory member nations possess the “inalienable right” to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”[1] As a signatory nation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to this most basic right, just like any other nation. However, the U.S. and its allies are seeking to infringe upon and limit Iran’s right to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes, asserting that the Iranian government is using its civilian nuclear program as a smokescreen for an alleged covert nuclear weapons program.[2] These assertions are backed by no credible evidence, just the assurances of the U.S. and Israeli governments respectively. It is further insinuated that once Iran develops nuclear weapons, it will certainly use them to “wipe Israel off the map of nations,”[3] presenting an existential threat to the Jewish people.

Despite the belligerent public tone of the U.S. government, however, its intelligence community has consistently reported to Congress that Iran’s military strategy is strictly geared towards “deterrence, asymmetric retaliation, and attrition warfare” (emphasis mine).[4] Even the US National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, recently admitted to Congress that “we do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons” and implicitly confirmed that Iran is not presently seeking to do so because if it were, such activities would certainly be discovered by the “international community.”[5] In spite of all this, President Obama maintains that “all options are on the table” to thwart Iran’s nuclear program, with a military attack on Iran taking place as early as June 2013.[6]  As we shall see, the U.S. is merely using Iran’s nuclear program as a pretext to justify further military intervention in the region in a larger effort to redesign the landscape of the Middle East in order to secure the continued global hegemony of the U.S. empire.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. remained standing as the world’s lone superpower. In 1991, President Bush declared the establishment of a “New World Order,” that is, a unipolar global system completely subjected to the imperial dictates of the United States and it’s junior partners.[7] Foreign policy experts and government policy think tanks immediately began mapping out blueprints for a new century of what can be called trilateral imperialism (the U.S., Western Europe and Japan).[8]

To this end, the Bush I administration called for “the integration of the leading democracies into a U.S-led system of collective security, and the prospects of expanding that system, (to) significantly enhance our international position and provide a crucial legacy for future peace.”[9] Within this collective framework, the U.S. would act to “preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the reemergence of a global threat to the interests of the United States and our allies.”[10] In other words, the first world should unite under the leadership of the United States to dominate and exploit the resources of the third world (cheap labor, oil, cobalt, etc.), while preventing any other power from emerging which could disrupt this neocolonial relationship.

At the time, Russia was deemed to be the only military power capable of potentially deterring U.S. imperialism. Thus, during the late 1990’s Council on Foreign Relations member and Clinton foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski advised that Russia “ought to be isolated and picked apart” in order to extend “America’s influence in the Caucasus region and Central Asia,” both formerly under Russian control.[11] In doing so, the U.S could secure it’s domination over Eurasia, long deemed to be the strategic “heartland” of global power.[12] The NATO-led “humanitarian intervention” in the former Yugoslavia during the late 1990’s must be understood in this light.

The Middle East has long been assigned a very narrow role within the imperialist world system, being seen as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”[13] This is of course only because of the regions’ massive natural gas and oil reserves, which the U.S. considers to be vital to its national interests. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in the post-war period has been geared towards three main objectives: 1) securing and maintaining “an open door” for Western companies to the regions vast oil and gas reserves; 2) maintaining a “closed door” for potential rival powers (i.e., Russia and China) to Middle Eastern oil; and 3) preventing Middle Eastern “radical and nationalist regimes” from coming to power that might use their oil and gas resources for the “immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses” and development for domestic needs.[14]

In the bipolar world of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was able to counter U.S. ambitions in the Middle East, supporting various secular nationalist regimes relatively hostile towards U.S. imperialism. After the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent isolation of Russia however, the U.S. was in a position to fundamentally alter the political map of the Middle East so as to “ensure that the enormous profits of the energy system flow primarily to the United States, its British client, and their energy corporations, not to the people of the region” or potential rival powers.[15] It is in this light that we must view the recent wave of “humanitarian interventions” conducted by the U.S. and NATO in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the current confrontation with Iran.

In 2000, the Project for a New American Century published a report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” which was extended and adopted as official national security policy in 2005. Drawing on the themes of the first Bush administration and Brzezinski, the report recommends that U.S. military forces become “strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.”[16] As noted above, there was nothing new in this goal of American hegemony per se, but what was new was the emphasis placed on “transforming” the political landscape of the Middle East. Due to the rise of Islamic terrorism and the stubborn existence of “rogue states,” the “stability” of the Middle East, North Africa, and their oil reserves were deemed to be essential objectives of U.S. national security and foreign policy.

Using the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a pretext for this grand imperial project, the Bush administration outlined a list of seven “rogue states” targeted for regime change in order to secure de facto U.S. control over global oil supplies. Those seven countries were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.[17] Of course, Iraq was invaded, occupied and democratized by the U.S. in 2003. The threat of Hezbollah in Lebanon has been satisfactorily neutralized as a result of Israel’s 2006 invasion, the Jamahariya government of Libya was utterly destroyed by NATO and Al Qaeda in 2011, the Assad regime of Syria is on the verge of collapse today as it is under attack from NATO and its Islamic mercenary forces, while there are ongoing covert military operations being conducted against Somalia and the Sudan. Only Iran remains intact as a nation-state out of the seven countries targeted by the U.S. for regime change.

The current U.S. propaganda campaign would have us believe that the U.S. is targeting Iran because it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons with which it will destroy Israel. As we have seen however, U.S. intelligence – that is, the agencies responsible for obtaining such information – does not have strong evidence to prove that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Further, in its assessment, Iran’s military strategy is not geared towards aggression or the offensive, but strictly deterrence and defense. Therefore, there must be some other reasons why the U.S. is gearing up for war against Iran.

In light of U.S. policy objectives to dominate global oil supplies and to subvert or overthrow “nationalist regimes” that seek to use their natural resources to benefit their domestic populations or to promote independent development, it should be fairly obvious that Iran is a target because its oil is nationalized and it pursues a program of independent development. Indeed, when Iran first nationalized its oil in 1953 under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, the CIA and British MI6 quickly organized a coup d’état to overthrow Mosaddegh and reprivatize Iranian oil.[18] The oil industry wasn’t nationalized again until the 1979 Islamic revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which quickly set Iran on a path of independent nationalist development.

Also of grave concern to the U.S is Iran’s growing commercial and economic relations with Russia and China. Iran exports 22% of its oil exports to China,[19] while it has cultivated a strong economic relationship with Russia on various fronts, especially in military equipment and nuclear infrastructure.[20] The Iranian regime’s independence from Washington has afforded Russia and China a foot in the door of the Middle East, which hinders the ability of the U.S. to completely dominate the region and prevent the rise of potential rival hegemons in the world system, perhaps the greatest threat posed by Iran.

Iran itself is deemed as a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East, as it is devoted to “countering U.S. influence” and becoming a regional hegemon.[21] To this end, Iran has been fostering political, economic and security ties with other actors in the region, appealing to Islamic solidarity and resistance to imperialism. Iran has become influential in both Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining U.S. objectives in those countries, and has maintained its support for the Assad regime in Syria, thwarting NATO’s efforts there.[22] All of these factors make Iran a formidable obstacle to U.S. objectives in the Middle East, halting Washington’s ability to totally redesign the political landscape of the region.

Iran also gives financial and military support to various politico-military organizations in the region. As the U.S. considers many of these organizations “terrorists”, Iran is then a “state sponsor of terrorism” for supporting them. Most of its support is channeled to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Both of these groups are opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine and to U.S. imperialism in the region more generally. Through Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran is able to exert its influence in the Middle East, creating political “destabilization” in Lebanon and Palestine.[23] The continued existence of such armed groups is considered a threat to U.S. objectives in the region and is another main reason why the U.S. is seeking to attack Iran.

When we place the current threats towards Iran in their proper geopolitical and historical context, it becomes clear that Iran’s nuclear program is not the real reason why the U.S. is gearing up to attack it. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the alleged threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program is merely a propaganda fabrication designed to garner popular support for the immanent invasion of Iran, similar to the lie that Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. In truth, Iran was targeted for regime change at least ten years ago, but because of its resistance to the “Washington Consensus,” its economic nationalism, its growing commercial and economic ties to Russia and China, its potential to become a regional hegemon, and its support of politico-military organizations opposed to the U.S. and Israel, not because of its nuclear program.

The drums of war are now beating in America as Washington prepares to launch the final phase of its grand strategy to remake the Middle East. This plan is merely one component of a much larger plan to maintain the world system of trilateral imperialism. In order to maintain the global supremacy of the West, the U.S. and its junior partners are determined to prevent the rise of Russia and China to hegemonic status. Thus, an attack on Iran will surely be viewed as an indirect attack on both Russia and China. A war on Iran may very well quickly escalate into a global military conflagration, consuming other states in the region, as well as Russia and China. To prevent such a scenario from unfolding, revolutionaries must dispel the propaganda about Iran’s nuclear program and expose the imperialist ambitions behind the U.S. government’s agenda to the American people.

*

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

This article was first published on Weaponized Information.

Sources

United Nations. “The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html. Retrieved 03/15/2013.

RT News. “UN, US ratchet up pressure over Iranian nuclear program,” http://rt.com/news/iran-un-parchin-kerry-782/. Retrieved 3/14/2013.

Norouzi, Arash. “Israel: ‘Wiped off The Map.’ The Rumor of the Century, Fabricated by the U.S. Media to Justify an All-out Attack on Iran,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-wiped-off-the-map-the-rumor-of-the-century-fabricated-by-the-us-media-to-justify-an-all-out-war-on-iran/21188. Retrieved 03/15/2013.

This is in reference to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Admadinejad that the “regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,” which was cynically mistranslated by the U.S. media to say “Israel must be wiped of the map.”

Notes

  1. US Department of Defense. “Annual Report on Military Power of Iran, April 2012,” www.fas.org/man/eprint/dod-iran.pdf. Retrieved 03/14/2013.
  2. RT News. “‘Iran can’t covertly produce an atomic bomb’ – US intelligence chief,” http://rt.com/news/iran-bomb-clapper-assessment-174/. Retrieved 03/13/2013.
  3. RT News. “Obama to threaten Iran with military strike in June, Israeli media reports,” http://rt.com/usa/obama-israel-military-june-503/. 03/14/2013.
  4. Speech given by President George H.W. Bush on March 6, 1991, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm. Retrieved 03/12/2013.
  5. This term is in reference to the Trilateral Commission, which is a government/business think-tank dedicated to the politico-economic integration of the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan. Adopted from Samir Amin’s term “imperialism of the Triad.”
  6. 9. Cheney, Dick. “Defense Strategy for the 1990s: The Regional Defense Strategy,” www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/naarpr_Defense.pdf. Retrieved 03/10/2013.
  1.  Ibid
  2.  Todd, Emmanuel. After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Empire, New York: Columbia University Press (2002), pp. 130-131.
  3.  Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Book (1998), p. 6.
  4.  Chomsky, Noam. World Orders Old and New, New York: Columbia University Press (1994), p. 190.
  5.  Ibid, p. 121-123.
  6.  Ibid, p. 192.
  7.  Project for a New American Century. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. Retrieved 03/11/2013.
  8.  Statement from retired General Wesley Clark, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw. Retrieved 03/13/2013.
  9.  Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,” New York: Metropolitan Books (2003), pp. 161-162.
  10.  New York Times Online, “Iran’s Oil Exports,” www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/01/07/world/middleeast/07irangraphic3.html?ref=middleeast. Retrieved 03/11/2013.
  11.  The Economist Online, “Vladimir Putin and the Holy Land,” http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21573600-warmer-relations-israel-do-not-stop-russia-backing-syria-and-iran-vladimir-putin-and-holy. Retrieved 03/14/2013.
  12.  Department of Defense, p. 2.
  13.  Ibid, p. 2.
  14.  Ibid, p. 3.

The West Willfully Supports ISIS and Always Has

January 5th, 2020 by Mark Taliano

ISIS is not “blow back”. ISIS did not “fill a vacuum”. The West did not “give rise” to ISIS.

The West supports ISIS directly, sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly. The West is ISIS. It is not an accident. The West willfully supports ISIS and always did.

Sometimes the West’s support for ISIS is covert, with a view to perpetrating the doctrine of “plausible deniability”. Other times it is overt, such as the West’s intentional murder of over 100 Syria soldiers at Jabal al Tharda, on 17 September, 2016. (1)

Washington’s assassination of General Qassem Soleimani was overt support for ISIS/Daesh. ISIS/Daesh, like Washington, is benefitting from the assassination, for the moment, since Soleimani played a key role in destroying al Qaeda/ISIS terrorism in the Middle East.

“The death of General Soleimani,” writes Senator Richard Black, “is a great tragedy. We have killed one of two generals most responsible for defeating ISIS and al Qaeda.” (2)

So now there is a resurgence of US troops and a parallel resurgence of ISIS.(3) This is what Washington wants. The covert Permanent State controlling the Washington Military Dictatorship wants war, not peace.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

Notes

  1. Prof. Tim Anderson, “Implausible Denials: The Crime at Jabal al Tharda. US-led Air Raid on Behalf of ISIS-Daesh Against Syrian Forces” Global Research, 17 December, 2017.
    (https://www.globalresearch.ca/implausible-denials-the-crime-at-jabal-al-tharda-us-led-air-raid-on-behalf-of-isis-daesh-against-syrian-forces/5623056) Accessed 4 January, 2020.
  2. Extract from “Statement of Senator Richard H. Black regarding the killing of General Soleimani. (revised 2:00 p.m. January 3, 2020.”
  3. Arabi Souri, “ISIS Re-Emerging in the Syrian Desert with the US Help” Syria News, 3 January, 2020.
    (https://www.syrianews.cc/isis-re-emerging-in-the-syrian-desert-with-the-us-help/?fbclid=IwAR1xv40DlzDHhZu2Sf3ZZLXn4cQkOm32e5TYaTFEX53SLAhKf1RPxQA8A-A ) Accessed 4 January, 2020.

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The West Willfully Supports ISIS and Always Has
  • Tags: ,

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) is clear: we will not fight for the rich. We understand our objective interests as an oppressed people and will not be moved by appeals to national chauvinism meant to galvanize the poor and working class to support wars of choice initiated by the white supremacist colonial/capitalist oligarchy.

BAP opposes war with Iran and is supporting the national mobilizations this weekend demanding No War on Iran and the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq.

But BAP also calls on all progressive forces to join us to fight the domestic military surge, to oppose the training of U.S. police forces by the Israeli state, to struggle to shut down AFRICOM, to demand the closing of the over 800 U.S. bases worldwide, to advocate against the normalization of nuclear war, and to expose the collaboration of  self-defined “progressive and radical” forces with the U.S. war-state.

The Trump Administration along with the democrats are united in their objective interests, despite the impeachment charade, to support white power in the form of their imperialist agenda. But they need us – the people – as the cannon fodder and the passive supporters.

They cannot have us. We will struggle against them, for ourselves and for humanity.

Dr. King warned about the spiritual death of the U.S. with its addiction to war and militarism, its materialism and extreme social alienation, but he was wrong.

The spiritual death of what became the United States occurred in 1619 when the settlers imported the first Africans and decided to expand beyond the coast of the country by force resulting in the monstrosity called the United States today.

We who believe in freedom – in the possibilities of real democracy, of people-centered human rights, of peace and a livable planet – cannot wait. We must understand that our aspirations must be translated into concrete struggle. We must be clear: we cannot win without a sharp understanding of the forces of oppression that must be defeated. For BAP, it is obvious when we look in the mirror “while driving as Black” that the enemy is not the Iraqis, Russians, Syrians or Venezuelans.

U.S. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

Oppose the Trump Domestic Surge Targeting Black People

Stop the Department of Defense 1033 Program that Militarizes Police Forces

Shut Down AFRICOM and ALL U.S. and NATO bases

Cut Obscene Military Budget by 50%

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Black Alliance for Peace Declares: If You Believe in Peace, Commit to Defeating the Warmongers. No War on Iran!
  • Tags: , , ,

The US assassinations of Iran’s General Soleimani and Iraqi General Muhandis will certainly undermine security in the Middle East. In the short term, it is certain to lead to an escalation of violence. Iran’s National Security Council met and announced that a harsh vengeance “in due time and right place” awaits “the criminals behind the assassination”. Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei has called for “severe revenge”. Iran has to retaliate to this cowardly attack, and all the key Iranian leaders have said that they will do so, at the right time. There are dozens of US targets in the region.

This escalation was unnecessary, Iran had signaled many times that there were diplomatic alternatives to confrontation, but the Trump regime has left them little choice. It seems that Israeli leaders are very happy with the assassination and the looming escalation. General Soleimani had helped the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance against zionist aggression and expansion, while leading the struggle against regional US-backed terrorism.

In the medium term, the assassination may help galvanize political will in Iraq to expel what has become an unrestrained US occupation. Iraqi MPs are currently preparing a law which would demand expulsion. Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi has condemned the assassinations as a breach of the agreement Iraq made with the US, when they returned to the country in 2014, under the guise of fighting DAESH. Muqtada al Sadr has joined with his former rivals to demand expulsion. If successful that would help stabilize both Iraq and the region. Gone from Iraq, US occupation forces in Syria would appear even more isolated.

Given the constant foreign aggression, a greater joining of hands between Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Syria, and eventually Lebanon and Palestine, is the only real way forward for security in the region.

The Trump regime’s cowardly assassinations are the exact opposite of fighting terrorism in the region. Starting with the recent murder of the 25 Iraqi PMU soldiers (allegedly in response to the killing of one civilian contractor in Kirkuk), Washington has targeted precisely the leading heroes of the struggle against DAESH. The US regime has effectively taken over the role of DAESH, by direct and open terrorism in Iraq, and against Iraqi national heroes. In the case of General Soleimani, the US criminals targeted the regional commander of resistance to zionist expansion, DAESH terrorism and imperialist intervention. Of course, Iran and Soleimani opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then backed resistance forces, even though Saddam Hussein was their mortal enemy. That is why Washington carries out about Soleimani’s involvement in ‘killing Americans’.

China and Russia recently joined Iran in naval exercises to show that a US presence in the region is neither necessary nor wanted, to secure oil flows from the Persian Gulf. The only reason for the ongoing presence of US forces in the region is to persist with the losing gambit of creating a ‘New Middle East’: a region ruled by Washington and its sectarian proxies in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. At first, Trump himself did not seem fully integrated into this plan, although he always expressed irrational and childish hostility towards Iran. I believe, as a pragmatist, he did want to leave the losing war against Syria. However, he has now joined the ranks of Bush and Obama in initiating a new regional escalation. Most likely other ‘deep state’ figures have persuaded him that failure in Iraq and/or Syria means an end to the New Middle East project. Of course, that project has indeed failed, but through arrogance, the Washington regime seems unable to publicly acknowledge that fact. It cannot accept defeat and persists in acts to punish the people of the region. The necessary withdrawal of imperial troops from the region may now become a bloody retreat. Remember Beirut in 1983?

*

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

Dr. Tim Anderson is Director of the Sydney-based Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies. He has worked at Australian universities for more than 30 years, teaching, researching and publishing on development, human rights and self-determination in the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Middle East. In 2014 he was awarded Cuba’s medal of friendship. He is Australia and Pacific representative for the Latin America based Network in Defence of Humanity. His most recent books are: Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (2015), The Dirty War on Syria (2016), Global Research, 2015, now published in ten languages; Countering War Propaganda of the Dirty War on Syria (2017) and Axis of Resistance: towards an independent Middle East (2019).

Featured image is from AHT


The Dirty War on Syria

by Tim Anderson

240 pages

Order the print version here

ISBN Number:
978-0-9737147-8-4
List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Mobile users, click here to order your copy.

To order the PDF version of the Dirty War on Syria, click here, sent directly to your email.

The criminal assassination of General Qassem Soleimani was not only an act of war, it was an act of low treachery and crass stupidity.  Among the self-justifying lies, leaders of the perpetual war regime in Washington claim that locating the targeted military leader was a brilliant accomplishment of U.S. intelligence.

Not at all! The Lebanese newspaper Al-Binaa reports that the Americans were routinely informed of Soleimani’s arrival in Baghdad simply because he was an official visitor, invited as military advisor to the Iraqi government. U.S. forces are responsible for Baghdad airport security. So they had to know since they were responsible… for the security of an official honored guest.

This should give all U.S. allies an uneasy feeling about the implications of American “protection” of their “security”.

Of course, leaders of the NATO satellites and their media propaganda machines largely pretend to believe Uncle Sam’s big lies: the General had to be killed to “save American lives”, the only lives that count, especially when they are in somebody else’s country killing people whom Israel doesn’t like.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the assassination in a telephone conversation.  We don’t know what they said, but it is reasonable to suppose that this can only hasten a shift in French foreign policy desired by many in the nation’s policy elite.  Fear of the monster creates a dilemma between submission and escape.

The United States has brazenly murdered the war hero of a sovereign nation whose military action has been devoted to defending his own nation (since the U.S.-instigated Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s) and his region from Saudi-backed Sunni fanatics, in the guise of Daech or al Qaeda.  Those fanatics have been openly instrumentalized by Israel to further the notorious Oded Yinon plan[1] to break up all Arab states into small units, the better to ensure Israel’s domination of the region.  It matters to non-Arab Shi’ite Iran because it incites armed Sunni fanatics to attack Shi’ites in Syria and other places.

Civilized peoples are capable of respect for their adversaries.  A noble warrior on one side can respect a noble warrior on the other side.  But there is no respect for anything human in a bunch of machines directed by morons.  When the U.S. murders a military strategist more successful than their own grotesquely over-armed losers, Pentagon apologists pretend that he (and not they) is the bloodthirsty killer spreading chaos throughout the Middle East.  If any honest history is written in the future, on the scale of barbarism versus civilization, contemporary U.S presidents will rank somewhere well below Attila the Hun, who at least faced his enemies in battle.

*

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

Diana Johnstone is author of Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher, Clarity Press, January 2020.

Featured image is from South Front

Author’s note: This article is loosely based on an hour-long rolling coverage / Press TV Interview – 3 January 2020 – on the US assassination of General Qassem Suleimani

***

Interestingly, after the US attack on Iraqi Militia fighters on 31 December 2020, and the assassination of General Qassem Suleimani, on 2 January, the first thing President Trump could come up with, was bragging that it was him who gave the order to murder the popular military leader. General Qassem Suleimani, was the commander of the Iranian special Quds Force. The Quds Force was created during the Iran–Iraq War as a special unit from the broader Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It has the mission of liberating Muslim land, especially al-Quds, from which it takes its name – “Jerusalem Force”, in English. 

General Suleimani was killed by a US drone. He was not only the most popular and prominent military officer in Iran, but he was also influential and respected throughout the Middle East. He was chief in training Iraqi forces who eventually defeated ISIS in Iraq within less than a year, when the US and NATO estimated it would take at least 3 years. General Suleimani, along with Russia was also instrumental in training the Syrian armed forces with the objective of defeating ISIS / IS / DEASH in Syria, and they succeeded. This US act of impunity, the General Suleimani killing, was unmistakenly targeted with precision and as such a clear declaration of war on Iran.

Trump expected applause from the public at large. Let’s not forget he is entering the year 2020 of his re-election… that’s what he wants. So, he needs increased popularity and approval ratings. To be reelected, he, like others before him, doesn’t shy away from committing murder or entering a new war, killing millions. That’s what American Presidents do to win elections. That’s what Obama has done. He entered the Presidency with two ongoing US wars – Afghanistan and Iraq – when he left office the US was engaged in seven wars around the globe, in Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Plus, numerous proxy-conflicts, meaning, they are fought by mercenaries and / or US trained, funded and armed terrorists, i.e. ISIS / DAESH, Islamic State (IS) and whatever other names the empire gives its agents of terror to confuse the world. And let’s not forget, the algorithmically manipulated regime-change elections in Latin America and Europe, the steady NATO advances with new military bases encircling Russia and China, including the stationing of more than 50% of the US Naval force in the South China Sea.

Most of the US Presidents are elected on the basis of their aggression, planned or ongoing, on how much they are willing to kill around the world – and how well they are representing the interests of the US War Industry — and, of course, the Israeli AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). In other words, Americans who go to the polls, are duped into believing they are electing a president, when in reality their president had been pre-selected by a small group of elitists, representing the key US interests, the War Industry, Big Finance, Big Oil, Big Pharma – and who else, of course, the State of Israel.

The unarmed Iraqi protests and attack on 31 December on the US Embassy in Bagdad was a response to a US assault on Militia Iraqi forces on 29 December – leaving at least 25 dead and more than 50 wounded.

The US has absolutely no business in Iraq. Not now, not ever – nor in Syria, nor anywhere else in the Middle East – for that matter, outside the frontiers of the United States of America. Its as simple as that.

And the world, the UN the UN Security Council should act accordingly.

The boundless US aggression must be stopped.

The world has become used to it – and, for the most part, is just silent. The ABNORMAL has become normal. That must be reversed.

Yes, the Iranian Government warned of retaliation. Understandably. However, that is precisely what Washington and the Pentagon wants; that’s what they were provoking, with this assassination of General Suleiman, and earlier with confiscated oil tankers and tanker attacks in the Gulf. The US hawks are just waiting for Iraq to retaliate, so they can attack in full force – or ask Israel to attack in full force with US backing, of course.

Knowing how the US is acting around the world with impunity – and especially in the countries they want to dominate – Iran has to count with the worst. So far, Iran has been acting wisely with a lot of restraint, not to risk MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction, in other words, a World War scenario.

A retaliation must be well-thought out – and foremost not be obvious. It must be strategic with long-term impact not the short-term face-saving military act. In the long-term, non-aggression, non-confrontation – the contrary of what Washington is seeking – may prevail. Let the American war hawks continue shadow boxing.

What the Middle East and world is dealing with, is a dying beast – that’s what the US empire has become. The beast, in its last breath, is lashing out round itself no matter how many other countries it pulls with it into the abyss, no matter how many people are killed in the process.

What will be the world’s reaction to this open and flagrant murder? – Do not expect much from the US-submissive West, especially the Europeans.

However, Iran can certainly count on Russia and China and on a number of other allies. And in the UN on the more than 120 non-aligned countries, that also stand behind Venezuela and Cuba, and now behind Evo Morales.

This is important. These unaligned countries are now in the majority of the UN body of member states. They have to speak out in the Security Council, as well as in the General Assembly. This case of US impunity should be elevated to world attention. Therefore, Iran may want to call a special UN General Assembly Meeting to discuss the case. It would show where the UN stands – and would accordingly provide Iran with more leverage on their reaction.

Iran cannot elevate this case high enough on the world stage. So that each and every nation realizes that their own sovereignty is at risk – is every day at risk – of being annihilated by the wannabe World Hegemon – the self-declared Exceptional Nation, US of A.

Only united this monster can be beaten.

Washington is weak, knows no long-term thinking, no long-term strategy – lives off instant gratification. This works for a while, by sheer military force, but not forever.

Russia and China have now far advanced precision weaponry – and are allies of Iran, short-term thinking may be a suicide mission.

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

America Is Ruled by a Murderer

January 5th, 2020 by Peter Koenig

As most days, this morning I opened the Tao – DaoDeJing– at random, at Dao-42. In its conclusion it says “Those who are forceful and aggressive… die a painful death – This I use as the foundation of my teaching.”

And so it may be. The reaction of “painful death” may not be immediate. Time in the dimensions of Tao has a different perspective of what we humans, particularly those living in the west, are used to. The concept of instant gratification, instant reward, or instant revenge, does not exist in the Wisdom of the 5000-year-old Tao.

President Trump is a murderer. Already before the murder of the popular Iranian Quds Force Commander, General Quassem Soleimani, Trump had not only blood on his hands and feet and smeared all over his face. He is responsible for countless deaths going into the millions, stemming from regular wars with guns and bombs, and from his financial-economic wars – by “sanctioning” countries which are not willing to bend to the Washington dictate, i.e. preventing them from importing life-saving medication, medical equipment and food. In Venezuela alone, according to a recent study carried out by the renown Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington DC, at least 40,000 people have perished since the beginning of 2017 due to US (Trump) sanctions. This figure has since considerably increased.

Yes, there is no doubt, Trump is a murderer. And yes, he is not alone. He is joined at least by those dark elitists who put him on the throne, and who direct and monito his atrocities; and foremost, by Israeli’s PM Netanyahu. Trump and Netanyahu are walking hand-in-hand, and it is unclear who is wagging whose tail. Israel is running the western world’s financial system, i.e. Wall Street and by now most related and affiliated globalized international banks which are financing the deadly US war industry.

On the other hand, the US military – plus NATO, the composite of the US, Canada and the European puppets, also called the European Union – they are all defending Israel’s horrendous crimes on the Palestine people for the last seventy years. The Nazi Holocaust pales in the face of Israeli atrocities waged against a helpless Gaza-incarcerated people. All that would not have been possible without the full military support and funding of the US.

And nobody dares to speak out against these genocidal crimes. Because, everybody who does, will be punished by law. Yes, the US has passed legislation – and probably under pressure from Washington, other countries have adopted similar legislation, to criminalize telling the truth about Israelis heinous murders. All under the convenient but utterly fake pretext of “antisemitism”.

This absolutely aberrant and illegal pressure against the truth has also largely influenced the United Nations (UN) body, the very UN that was created to protect the poor, the discriminated against; created to defend justice, to arbitrate between adversaries – but NO, nothing of that is adhered to or even respected by the members of the UN. Hundreds, if not thousands of UN Resolutions against Israel, against Israel’s crimes against humanity, were ignored by Israel, and nobody – but NOBODY – dares stand up in front of this enormous Body of Justice, as it were, to insist that those who go against the UN Resolutions have to be prosecuted by international law. Period.

But then again, what is ‘international law’ in our times of US impunity and immunity that breaks every international law, even threatens the International Criminal Court (ICC) to destroy it, if it dares prosecuting the US or Israel for crimes against humanity?

Can you imagine? Yes, that’s the world we live in. People wake up! The imaginary clock is reaching High Noon.

Laws are to no avail. The US rules and kills with self-given immunity. The situation is getting worse. State assassinations ordered by Trump and Netanyahu continue lawlessly, unpunished. The world looks on as if it were a normality — bought propaganda and corrupted media keep indoctrinating the western public with the idea that that war is peace and right is wrong, and indeed – that war and killing is profitable (the WaPo on several occasions), implying, ‘making our economy strong’.

The latest Trump murder of the Iranian Commander, Soleimani, may have just crossed the legendary Rubicon – the line not to cross – because there is a limit to just about everything. And the arrogance of the United States has now passed that limit – actually bringing the world to the brink of WWIII, or a similar disaster that may have implications bringing down civilization as we know it – and with it the false-fake-lie-and-crime-spangled US of A – pretty much as Tao predicts. The western “allies” of such crimes, or “collaborators”, as they would have been called during the WWII Nazi period, are equally at fault, for tolerating during decades in silence these heinous acts of mass murder – and wars – wars, for power and resources and for world hegemony.

Now we are living in the west in another Nazi-Fascist Period – that could easily prompt WWIII. This time the world would be not just in shatters, but annihilated to rubble and cinder. Good riddens of humanity! Let Mother Earth regenerate itself and, perhaps be generous enough to one day give man another chance – in a timeframe that is not measured by human dimensions, maybe not even by Tao dimensions – but by dimensions that are regulating the universe in harmony.

*

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

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

The latest MH17 documentary, “MH-17: In Search Of Truth” by Ukrainian SBU whistleblower Vasily Prozorov, shares some shocking truths about that tragedy which strongly make the case that the UK conspired with Kiev to take down that civilian aircraft as part of a preplanned Hybrid War plot against the Donbas rebels that was also intended to frame Russia as the West’s main geopolitical competitor.

Ukrainian SBU whistleblower Lieutenant Colonel Vasily Prozorov released a documentary about the MH17 tragedy late last month titled “MH-17: In Search Of Truth“, which true to its name shares some shocking truths about what transpired on that fateful summer day back on 17 July, 2014. His investigative work relies on his personal knowledge of the events surrounding that affair (including through his contacts at the time), classified documents, eyewitness reports, and logic to strongly make the case that the UK conspired with Kiev to take down that civilian aircraft as part of a preplanned Hybrid War plot against the Donbas rebels. The nearly 40-minute-long documentary is worth watching in full, but for those who aren’t able to at the moment yet are still interested in learning more about this cover-up, what follows is a brief summary of some of the most important points raised in his documentary.

 

Prozorov draws attention to how suspicious it was that supposedly leaked recordings from rebel leaders allegedly implicating them in the tragedy were shared on social media within hours of MH17 being shot down. Ukrainian law has very strict bureaucratic guidelines for declassifying wiretapped evidence which couldn’t have been followed in less than a few days’ time at the absolute earliest, strongly suggesting that the recordings were faked in advance by the country’s SBU security service after intercepting voice samples of the alleged suspects ahead of time. The purpose in doing so was to immediately take control of the narrative per the preplanned Hybrid War plot of delegitimizing the Donbas rebels’ cause by framing them as “terrorists” and thus preventing a possible Russian military intervention in their support like was widely speculated to be in the planning stages around that time, but that last-mentioned point will be returned to in a moment.

The next one that Prozorov talks about is how Kiev’s claims that its armed forces weren’t in the combat area during that time are unconvincing since he proves that the battle lines were actually very fluid. Not only are there eyewitness reports to this effect, but also evidence of their tire tracks going back and forth all throughout the area, as well as countless ration wrappers proving that presence of the armed forces and their allies there. This is very important since part of Kiev’s defense rests in its insistence that even if the BUKs under its control were deployed somewhere near the front lines (which will also be returned to later on in this analysis), they allegedly weren’t close enough to shoot down MH17. Prozorov, however, proved that this isn’t true since the Ukrainian Armed Forces freely moved all around the area and could easily have been within striking distance of the aircraft at the time of the tragedy.

One of the more interesting tidbits that Prozorov revealed in his documentary was his participation in a conference at the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine on 8 July, 2014, focusing on making amendments to the country’s so-called “anti-terrorist” legislation. He vividly recalls overhearing an exchange between Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Col. Gen. Mikhail Koval and an unknown Defense Ministry representative right after the event ended. Prozorov remembers how the representative expressed his fear (which was widespread at the time) that Russia was preparing a military intervention in support of the Donbas rebels which he was worried would crush Kiev’s forces in the region. Koval, however, reassured his interlocutor by telling him that he heard hints that something will soon happen which will pose a serious challenge to Russia’s alleged plans. Nine days later, MH17 was shot down.

In response to the obvious question about how that happened, Prozorov begins by explaining that Donbas’ airspace wasn’t forcibly closed by Kiev unlike what one would ordinarily expect a responsible state to do. This created ample opportunities for the organizers to prepare their provocation since international aircraft continued to transit over the conflict region for convenience’s sake. Facilitating their preplanned plot, Prozorov points out how a radiolocation station in Donbas’ Artemovsk was mysteriously disabled a month before MH17 was shot down. He notes that it could have pinpointed where the BUK missile came from had it been active at the time of the tragedy and wonders aloud why the Ukrainian media didn’t make a fuss out of blaming the rebels back then. His answer is that the third regiment of the Special Operation Forces of Ukraine were responsible, suggesting that these sabotage experts carried out their operation to cover Kiev’s future tracks.

Another relevant fact that Prozorov discusses in his documentary is that the US didn’t immediately release the satellite evidence that they claimed to have from the day of the tragedy. He believes that this was done in order to give the perpetrators enough time to finalize their “alternative facts” in the immediate aftermath of what happened and not accidentally screw everything up for them. In addition, he questions why the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) didn’t accept the evidence that was promptly provided by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) from the crash site, as well as why it took the Dutch investigators months to show any real interest in the wreckage. These curious observations give credence to the claim that many of those tasked with investigating the incident weren’t impartial and instead wanted to push a very specific preplanned narrative. It’s also strange that the Malaysian authorities were initially marginalized by the intelligence-led investigative team.

Prozorov shared some very important information about the role that the 156th anti-aircraft regiment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces played in MH17’s downing, too. He spoke to two former conscripts who served with the unit during that time but have since defected to the rebels. They explained how their forces counted a BUK among their armaments and were deployed to the Donbas front lines prior to being mysteriously withdrawn from combat service despite the widespread fear that summer that Russia was about to militarily intervene in the conflict. Officers and contract soldiers then accompanied the BUK to a so-called “training range” while the conscripts were ordered to remain at base. It was only later that they learned from their colleagues who were physically there that the BUK was actually deployed to the combat area and had fired at least one missile right at the time that MH17 was shot down.

There’s some pretty intriguing evidence that Prozorov shared in his documentary about suspected British involvement in all of this as well. He relied on a document to prove that that chief of the counterintelligence department Major General Valery Kondratyuk accompanied two British secret service agents and others to the Donbas operational area on 22 June, 2014 for a one-day visit, after which all of the SBU representatives left except for Lieutenant Colonel Vasily Burba, who remained with Kiev’s British “guests”. Prozorov happens to know Burba since the latter replaced him and his colleagues there earlier that month, and he says that Burba participated in the MH17 plot together with the foreign agents. Afterwards, Kondratyuk and Burba’s careers “coincidentally” experienced meteoric success, with the former becoming the chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate before being replaced by the latter and then becoming the presidential deputy chief of staff.

Two other pieces of evidence also point to British involvement. The first is that Peter Kalver, the Australian intelligence agent tasked with leading his country’s investigative expert group in Donbas, used a British phone number. That would be strange in and of itself since he’s an Australian working in Ukraine, but when combined with what was previously revealed, it suggests that British secret involvement was even more far-reaching than initially suspected and raises questions about how many other less-important “investigative” figures might also have been connected to the UK. As for the second piece of evidence, Prozorov mentions that the UK-based “investigative journalism website” Bellingcat (funded in part by the Open Society Foundation and National Endowment For Democracy) was founded just days before the incident and then suddenly became the primary source of accusations against Moscow, making one wonder whether it’s actually an intelligence infowar front.

Wrapping everything up, Prozorov concludes his documentary by reviewing his main points, namely that MH17’s downing was a meticulously preplanned plot by the Ukrainian and British security agencies to pin the blame for this false flag attack on the Donbas rebels, all with the intent of portraying them as “terrorists” and thus also make it politically impossible for Russia to militarily intervene in their support like was widely suspected to be in the planning stages during that summer. There was also the grander intention of framing Russia as the West’s main geopolitical competitor. All of this is relevant to still keep in mind since the JIT’s judicial proceedings will begin in March 2020, thus returning the issue back to the international spotlight as the perpetrators attempt to absolve themselves by convincing the world that the innocent suspects are guilty. Altogether, Prozorov’s documentary is extremely insightful and worth watching in full if one finds the time.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on MH17 Malaysian Airlines Documentary by Ukraine SBU Whistleblower: Review
  • Tags:

Soleimani’s Assassination: An Act of Psychological Warfare

January 5th, 2020 by Douglas Valentine

Douglas Valentine is the author of “The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World.” His rare access to CIA officials has resulted in portions of his research materials being archived at the National Security Archive, Texas Tech University’s Vietnam Center and John Jay College.

He has written three books on CIA operations, including the Phoenix Program: America’s Use of Terror in Vietnam, which documented the CIA’s elaborate system of population surveillance, control, entrapment, imprisonment, torture, and assassination in Vietnam. His new book describes how many of these practices remain operational today. in an extensive interview with Parsi policy, Valentine explained that assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani is an act of psychological warfare.

***

Mostafa Afzalzadeh: In many countries, it is the intelligence communities that actually run and control the governments. What is the role of the intelligence services, especially the CIA, in the United States?

Douglas Valentine: The US government officially spends $50 billion a year on intelligence. Much of that is on “foreign” intelligence but nowadays, it’s impossible to determine where foreign intelligence ends and domestic intelligence begins. Especially in regard to psychological warfare aimed at the American people by its own government. Psychological warfare – the shaping of beliefs, and thus political and social movements – is the most highly prized and effective of all intelligence operations.

The process of converting “intelligence” gained on foreign adversaries into policy relies on an impenetrable barrier of secrecy. As Guy Debord said, secrecy dominates this world, foremost as the secret of dominance. This highly restricted process of access to information allows politicians, intel bureaucrats and their corporate partners in the arms industry 1) to turn Lies into Truth and 2) gobble up the lion’s share of the US budget, at the expense of the general welfare of the citizens. This means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the poor never have any idea what’s really happening.

For example, as we now know, the Iraq War was based on a Big Lie, and the War in Afghanistan has been based entirely on a Big Lie for 18 years. But no one bats an eye, and there’s no unified mass movement to make the government tell the truth, because the relentless psy-war that permeates public discourse creates a paranoid war culture where killing imaginary threats is venerated as the highest virtue. Americans believe America must always be the superior force, the dominator, and the intelligence agencies create the fictions that keep the “Dream Machine” churning.

We face the ultimate danger now. Trump, the abusive stud personified, with the help of Fox News and other right wing news outlets, has manipulated public distrust of “fake news” and a “deep state” to effect a Fascist coup. No one knows disinformation from misinformation anymore thanks to Trump.  Many people, as a result, even believe the inherently fascist CIA and military are opposing Trump. Whether you believe the Big Lies or manage to see through them, we’re all powerless prisoners within of the Spectacle – the contrived Great Delusion.

Trump has INCREASED the military budget, CIA operations are ever expanding. Trump has not impeded the military or intelligence establishments.

MA: At some point in the Syrian crisis, it was said that the CIA was planning to launch a fictitious attack together with white helmets to launch a chemical strike against the Syrian people so that get the Trump administration to start a war on Syrian government. To what extent can the CIA operate outside the command and supervision of the US President?

DV: You assume the Trump administration did not want to get involved. And that’s a mistake.  Like all administrations, the Trump admin has “stated” policies that satisfy its political base, and it has “unstated” policies that are necessary to satisfy the Establishment. The CIA conducts Trump’s “unstated” policies. Trump runs the CIA and it cannot defy him, even if he portrays it as a renegade. That’s Double Speak and it is part of the cover story.

The CIA and military have “long range” strategic plans in place.  For example, the military has 800 bases around the world to ensure that US corporations have access to foreign markets, and that the US military dominates the world. Trump will not close these military bases because they are in the economic and national security interests of the US and he wants the economy to do well. He closed one base in Syria to appease Turkey, but he kept the US military forces in Syria.

Trump has INCREASED the military budget – there are as many Navy warships patrolling the oceans, and as many warplanes flying over foreign nations, and as many nuclear weapons aimed at Russia and China as ever.  In fact, there are more. Same with intelligence operations. CIA operations are ever expanding. Trump has not impeded the military or intelligence establishments. He has merely made charges against individual members of the military, CIA and FBI to secure his control over the minds of American citizens. The Empire marches on.

MA: What was the reason for Trump’s clash with US security agencies, especially the CIA, and the lack of recognition of reports given to the president at the beginning of his presidency?

DV: As I said, it’s an illusion. He is the president, the Commander in Chief, he runs the security agencies. He tells them what to do and they salute and do it. Some members of the security agencies suspect Trump of being a wannabe dictator and a Russian agent. It’s also thought that he laundered money for the Jewish branch of the Russian mafia starting as early as the mid-1980s. And it’s possible he did, wittingly or unwittingly, as part of a long range CIA operation designed to install corrupt oligarchs in the USSR as part of a strategic plan to corrupt and subvert the USSR.

Trump is exactly the sort of greedy hustler the CIA would use in such an operation. If it is true, then Trump is a protected person who is blackmailing the CIA. The CIA can’t reveal that he worked for them in this illegal operation involving drug money. Nothing about his relationship with the CIA could ever be made public. Many CIA employees may object to a freak of nature like Trump lording it over their agency.  But no one who knows could ever tell.

MA: During the Obama administration, the CIA appears to have been more active in assassinating and sabotaging programs towards Iran than in the Trump administration, activities like the Stuxnet and assassinating Iranian scientists. The measures are said to have taken place with the participation of the Mossad intelligence agency. In your opinion these actions in the Trump administration has become less? If so, why?

DV: That appears to be true, in part. Iranian scientists were murdered. But Trump has not reduced economic warfare and psy-war operations against Iran. He sabotaged the nuclear agreement and isolated the nation. And I believe he has gotten the MOSSAD more deeply involved in US intelligence operations, domestically as well as overseas in Iran.  Witness his relationship with Netanyahu and his status as a hero in Israel, which considers Iran an existential threat.  I could elaborate, but it’s all speculation.

MA: Few years ago, various publications wrote about Michael D’Andrea, who was in charge of Iran in the CIA, please described how capable this person is and how capable he is to act out of the general structure of CIA against Iran?

DV: I cannot comment on D’Andrea. I do know the CIA hires psychopaths capable of committing any crimes, and then puts them in charge of operations like the ones D’Andrea ran and is currently running.

MA:  In the Obama administration, a person named David Cohen went to the CIA from the Treasury Department. To what extent can the CIA play a role in sanctions against Iran?

DV: It plays a defining role. As I mentioned, it conducts unstated policy. It has secure lines of communication with the Iranian government and can negotiate terms of any settlement without the media or other part of the government knowing.

It can secretly through agents inside the Iranian program and through electronic intercepts determine what Iran is doing, from Iran’s strategic plans to the details of its nuclear program. That’s intelligence. It can also disrupt whatever Iran is doing through a variety of methods.

MA: Why did Trump go against his previous practice and directly assassinate the Iranian authorities?

DV: I absolutely disagree that the assassination is a departure from Trump’s policy. I have no idea why you would say that. Trump is on record saying he believes in assassination, including killing the families of his targets. Plus which drone strikes, which are the primary instrument of CIA selective terror and assassination, have increased under Trump.

MA: What would be the consequences of such a decision for the US government?

DV: Trump’s assassination of a High Value target is an act of psychological warfare, in this case aimed primarily at the US public and Israeli publics. 1) It allowed Trump to deflect attention from the impeachment scandal. 2) It assured his American and Israeli followers that he is predatory, with the willingness to kill without remorse.

It is also an act of selective terror directed at Iran.  The assassination is meant to terrify the leaders in Iran and deter them from attacks against Americans and Israelis.

MA: Thanks for your time.

*

This article was originally published on Parsi Policy

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

Mostafa Afzalzadeh is a journalist and documentary filmmaker.

UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnes Callamard slammed the Trump regime’s assassination of Iranian General Soleimani, Iraqi Deputy PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and others with them, tweeting the following:

“The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most likely unlawful and violate international human rights law.”

“Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal.”

“Another major problem with extra territorial targeted killings is the lack of oversight.”

“Executives decide who may be killed outside due process, when it acts in self-defense, against whom and how. Without approval of Parliaments.”

Pompeo commented on Soleimani’s assassination with a litany of Big Lies, saying:

The Trump regime “deci(ded) to eliminate Soleimani in response to imminent threats to American lives (sic).

“(O)ur commitment (is) to deescalation (sic).”

Assassinating Soleimani was a “defensive action (to counter)  aggressive threats posed by the Iranian Quds Force (sic).”

He “was actively plotting in the region to take actions…that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk (sic).”

All of the above is pure rubbish, believed by no one understanding how the US operates — by its own rules extrajudicially in pursuit of its imperial aims.

Killing Soleimani, Muhandis, and others with them was US cold-blooded murder, an unjustifiable high crime.

The Pentagon unjustifiably justified its criminal act, saying the following:

“At the direction of (Trump), the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by (the) killing(s)” — a bald-faced Big Lie, followed by more lies, falsely claiming:

Soleimani “orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months (sic).”

“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans (sic).”

“The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world (sic).”

Aggression by the Trump regime and his most recent predecessors transformed hundreds of millions of Muslims into US haters, along with countless others worldwide — making the US the world’s most reviled country.

Throughout Islamic Republic history since 1979, its ruling authorities and military leaders never ordered an attack on another nation or their officials.

Pompeo presented no evidence backing his preposterous accusations because none exists.

Whenever Guterres comments on incidents like Soleimani’s assassination and other hostile US, NATO, and Israeli actions, he always calls on all sides to show restraint — failing to lay blame where it belongs.

After saying nothing for hours after the Trump regime’s state-sponsored aggression against Soleimani and others with him, his spokesman issued his pre-scripted remark, saying:

“The secretary general has consistently advocated for de-escalation in the Gulf (sic). He is deeply concerned with the recent escalation (sic).”

“This is a moment in which leaders must exercise maximum restraint (sic). The world cannot afford another war in the Gulf (sic).”

“The world” needs a world body leader with cajones, not a weak-kneed pro-Western puppet — beholden to higher powers in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called for “(m)eting out just punishment (to Trump regime) criminal assassins,” adding:

It’s “the responsibility and task of all resistance fighters worldwide.”

“We who stayed by (Soleimani’s) side will follow in his footsteps and strive day and night to accomplish his goals.”

“We will carry a flag on all battlefields and all fronts, and we will step up the victories of the ‘axis of resistance’ with the blessing of his pure blood.”

Syria’s Foreign Ministry condemned US aggression and assassinations, calling its actions “a serious escalation…(a) cowardly (act) of aggression…strengthen(ing) determination to follow in the path of the resistance’s martyred leaders.”

On Friday, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets to condemn the Trump regime.

Over the long-term, US policies are self-defeating, its extremism typical of a nation in decline.

The greater its hostile actions globally, the more enemies it makes.

Commenting on Soleimani’s assassination, Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova the following:

The Pentagon’s “missile strike (that killed Soleimani and others was) an act that is out of sync with international law…the height of cynicism” by a rogue state.

Washington’s aim is all about pursuing might over right, seeking to “chang(e) the balance of power in the region.”

“That will not result in anything but escalating tensions in the region, which will be sure to affect millions of people.”

The Trump regime’s action “will not bypass the United Nations,” the Security Council to address it — US/UK/French veto power preventing official condemnation.

Killing Soleimani, deputy head of Iraq’s PMU Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and others with them more greatly destabilized the region.

Their assassinations had nothing to do with protecting US lives, everything to do with advancing its imperium.

It was a foolhardy self-defeating act that backfired, accomplishing nothing but greater popular anger against the US.

It also pressures Iraqi MPs to pass legislation that orders US forces out of the country, what may be coming ahead.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Secretary General Guterres Fails to Condemn US Assassinations in Iraq
  • Tags: , ,

The US under both right wings of its war party excels at brute force, not long-range strategic thinking and planning.

Pentagon terror-bombing assassinations of Iranian IRGC Quds commander General Qassem Soleimani and deputy head of Iraq’s PMU Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an act of hot war against both countries, accomplished the following:

It martyred both men, united Iranians and Iraqis against Washington’s Middle East presence, advancing things closer to when they’ll no longer be tolerated one day.

Most important, what happened furthered US decline, an incremental process underway for decades, notably post-9/11.

Does Washington want hot war with Iran beyond waging it by other means since its 1979 revolution, greatly escalated by Trump regime economic terrorism?

Already bogged down in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, three unwinnable quagmires, will it get itself into the mother of all 4th one by waging war on Iran?

The Islamic Republic is much stronger militarily than other countries the US is at war with, able to strike back hard against its regional interests and allies if attacked.

Chickenhawks Trump, Pompeo, other regime officials and their congressional partners know nothing about warmaking.

Pentagon commanders understand it well, knowing that war with Iran likely means large numbers of US casualties, strikes on its regional bases and vessels, Israel vulnerable to attack — even if ISIS and other jihadists are used as proxy forces on the ground.

US war on Iran will likely embroil the region more greatly than any time anywhere since WW II with no assurance of its outcome.

If Russia intervenes against US aggression at Tehran’s request, as it did in Syria, the risk of global war would be heightened, possible nuclear war if things go this far.

Russian Foreign Ministry official Zamir Kabulov earlier said that if Iran is attacked, it will not be alone.

Asked if Russia would provide material support, he said “specific actions are a question for the Russian president,” adding:

“But it’s not just Russia. Many other countries sympathize and empathize with Iran. Tehran won’t be alone if the US, God forbid, takes wild and irresponsible actions against it.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov affirmed Kremlin support for Iranian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Vladimir Putin earlier said US war on Iran “would be a catastrophe,” adding: It would have “sad consequences” for any country “attempt(ing) it.”

Russia’s Foreign Ministry called Pentagon terror-bombing incidents in Iraq “unacceptable and counterproductive,” actions further “destabiliz(ing)” the region.

On Saturday according to Iran’s Press TV, Pentagon warplanes terror-bombed “a convoy belonging to Iraq’s anti-terror (Popular Mobilization Units) fighters north of” Baghdad.

The strike came 24 hours after Soleimani, Muhandis, and others with them were assassinated by the Trump regime, Iraqi television calling the latest incident a US strike — killing six, wounding others.

On Friday, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council vowed to retaliate against Soleimani’s assassination “in due time (in) the right place,” a statement further saying:

During an “extraordinary” Security Council session, “various aspects of (Soleimani’s assassination were) examined…appropriate decisions” made, adding:

The US is “responsible for all the consequences of this criminal adventurism…a strategic mistake.”

“America will not easily get away with the consequences of this miscalculation.”

US “blind and coward(ly) (actions) strengthen the Islamic Republic’s determination to keep up with its resistance policies.”

A separate Iranian Intelligence Ministry statement said the US criminal act will not go unanswered.

Iranian academic Mohammad Marandi called US assassinations of Soleimani and Muhandis “an act of war” against Iran and Iraq, adding:

The US “has been acting with impunity in Iraq from day one of its occupation.”

Its hardliners aim “to see (ISIS) regain (control of) the border between Iraq and Syria.”

“The Americans ignore the sovereignty of Iraq. They ignore (PM) Mahdi. They ignore the will of the Iraqi people.”

“They murder the heroes of the war against (ISIS), and they wonder why they are so widely despised across the region.”

Establishment media support US aggression, reporting official narrative propaganda, most Americans manipulated by repeated disinformation.

Gallup polls on US public sentiment toward Iran from 1989 to 2019 showed over 80% of respondents consistently view the country unfavorably — because of the power of media reported anti-Iran propaganda.

Time and again, Trump proves he’s a geopolitical know-nothing, on Friday saying:

Assassinating Soleimani was “to stop a war, not to start one (sic),” falsely accusing him of conducting a “reign of terror (sic),” killing “millions (sic)” — precisely what US aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere is all about.

Throughout its 40-year history, the Islamic Republic proved it’s a peacemaker, not a warmaker like the US, NATO, Israel and their imperial partners.

Separately according to US media, the Pentagon is deploying another 3,500 troops to the Middle East, likely to Iraq or nearby — adding to 60,000 or more already in the region.

Their presence has nothing to do with protecting US or regional security, everything to do with pursuing its destructive imperial interests —featuring endless wars of aggression and other hostile actions against nonthreatening sovereign states.

Assassinating Soleimani and Muhandis by the Trump regime, national heroes in their countries, redoubtable anti-terror fighters, opened the gates of hell against US personnel in the region.

Henceforth they’re more reviled, unwanted, and unsafe than earlier.

According to Reuters, Iraqi Shiite political officials called for US forces in the country to be expelled.

Iraqi PM Mahdi said the following:

“The targeted assassination of an Iraqi commander is a violation of the agreement. It can trigger a war in Iraq and the region,” adding:

“It is a clear violation of the conditions of the US presence in Iraq. I call on the parliament to take the necessary steps” — meaning legislation demanding US forces leave the country.

Last year, Soleimani challenged US hostile actions against Iran, saying:

The Islamic Republic has “power and capabilities in the region. (The US knows) how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare. Come, we are waiting for you,” adding:

“You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end.”

Hostile Trump regime actions against Iran and Iraq virtually assure more to come, both countries to respond appropriately as they see fit.

Tinderbox Middle East conditions the Trump regime escalated could explode into an uncontrollable firestorm ahead.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Eureka Street

Wars occur when ideologues and/or reckless leaders in position of power are willing to engage in high risk brinksmanship in foreign policy military adventures–often as a distraction from their growing domestic problems. Their megolomania often leads them to misread the potential response of their targeted adversary, setting off a process of unavoidable tit for tat escalation by both sides until war actually breaks out.

The historical examples are undeniable of the role of personality in the precipitation of War in the 20th-21st Century:

Germany’s Kaiser 1914 mobilization of allies in response to Serbian archduke’s assassination that set in motion quid pro quo escalations; Hitler’s assumption that Britain-France would do nothing in the case of Poland as they in Czechoslovakia; Japan Tojo’s belief that war with the USA would be short should the US navy’s pacific forces be decimated in Hawaii and driven from Philippines; South Korea president Syngman Rhee’s incursion into North Korea in 1950 that started the Korean war. LBJ’s Tonkin Gulf lie and subsequent military escalation in Vietnam to destroy the Vietcong, based on the assumption that North Vietnam forces would thereafter not join the conflict. Saddam Hussein’s miscalculation to invade Kuwait, based on (false) assurances from the US that the US would not respond. Osama bin Laden’s and Taliban’s assumption US would not mobilize and invade after 9-11. George W. Bush’s embracing of US neocons’ advice that military conquest of Iraq would mean the end of war there, not just the beginning. And now Trump’s provocation of war with Iran by assassinating its most senior military general. Miscalculations all, by reckless, high risk-taking political leaders, with little understanding of the dynamics that often lead up to war.

Three questions to consider in light of the recent US killing of Iran’s top general:

Does anyone doubt what would be the response of the USA if its top general and commander in Europe were assassinated by Iran–and Iran followed it up with a declaration that they did it and he deserved it?

Is it just coincidence that Trump’s ‘crossing the Rubicon latest escalation’ has nothing to do with the timing of impeachment proceedings in Congress? Or what appears to be an increasing probability of US economic recession in an election year.

Trump could not unilaterally go to war with Iran without US Congress approval beforehand, given the US War Powers Act. Were he to do so it would constitute yet another violation of the US Constitution. But he could provoke Iran to start one, attack US military forces, which under that same Act would allow him to respond militarily with as much force as he wanted. Is Trump trying to provoke Iran, in order to have it precipitate an equivalent response so that he, Trump, can bypass a Congressional vote to go to war he knows he won’t get?

Who’s Running the Trump Foreign Policy Show?

Trump has already fired or driven out all the military generals and advisers from his administration who might have cautioned him on his growing military brinksmanship. US foreign policy for months has now been the policy of US neocons now running his administration in State, Defense, and elsewhere. (And recall it was the Neocons back in 2002-03 that advised and drove Bush to attack Iraq).

In all the foregoing historical cases, wars are precipitated by radical ideologue and non-military intellectuals and bureaucrats who advise the high risk taking and brinksmanship action by political leaders willing to ‘roll the dice’ on military adventures. Politicians who are short sighted about the dynamics of how wars are started, and once started aren’t easily stopped (if at all). Politicians and intellectuals-advisers precipitate the conflict; but the conflict soon sets in motion forces of its own that are not controllable. The reckless, high risk politicians are then dragged along by the forces of war, controlled by it instead of controlling it.

Trump is dragging the US toward war, whether by choice (by creating a distraction from domestic troubles); or by advice (by intellectuals-advisers Neocons whose ideologies serve their fantasy imaginations of wielding power and advancing empire); or by the inevitable accident forthcoming once escalation passes a point of no return (as it always does if allowed to continue).

Know Them by the Company They Keep

Trump is now in infamous company: with the Kaiser, Tojo, Hitler, and all the others after who have always miscalculated and pushed their countries to the brink of war–and over.

All reckless, high risk taking, believers in their own egos, and over-estimators of their ability to judge their opponents, the course of events, and their outcomes.

The similarity in personalities–and the errors they typically make that lead to war and destruction–is not easily ignored.

You can know the person by the company they keep! And that goes for Trump

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020, available on this blog, jackrasmus.com, at discount. He hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump vs. Iran: Has the US Crossed the Escalation to War Rubicon?
  • Tags: ,

The foremost state sponsor of terror, the United States of America, carried out a brazen act of terrorism yesterday that took the life of a revered Iranian general – General Ghassem Soleimani.  A man, no, a legend, who led the resistance in confronting occupation, injustice, and terrorism.   The man lauded for defeating ISIS.

Heartbroken at the defeat of ISIS, the United States bombed the man who had led that defeat.    Trump bombed to kill Soleimani and to save ISIS, to expand its hegemony.  Trump failed. He obliterated any chance this world had for peace and he managed to plant the seed of revenge in every heart that beats for justice.  Iran does not mourn alone.  Make no mistake – it was not one man that was killed.  It was the fragile hope of peace, of our future and that of our world that was destroyed.   Trump was Iran’s 911.  He forced a fate akin to 911 but vastly different.

While 911 was an inside job to justify and launch America’s violent thrust into the unsuspecting world so that it could crown itself as the global hegemon,  Trump and his cadre of idiots gloated about the terror they had inflicted on the world.  Too stupid to grasp the significance and the consequences of their actions.  102 (January 02) will live in infamy. The bomb that killed Soleimani will spiral the world out of control; send America into a freefall.  January 02 will be remembered as the end of America’s hegemony – 102 will be inscribed on its tombstone.   Tombstone of a nation that could have been great, was capable of so much good, but was instead utterly destructive until it was destroyed by the enemies within.

The bombs took out Soleimani, but they raised millions like him.   Faced with the terror of one of the most popular men in Iran, and the wider Middle East, hero of men and women who sought justice, what choice is Iran left with?  Does the Trump team think that the millions who mourn the man and celebrate his martyrdom will go home and weep?  Cower? No.

It has already dawned on the Trump team that they have just jolted the world and they fear the shaky ground underneath them.  Already, Pompeo’s gloat has turned into a whimper.  Quick to contact the Russians, Iran’s allies, he told them that “the United States remains committed to de-escalation.”   What he is imploring is  for Russians  to plead with Iran to show restraint.   But no one can turn back this clock.

Team Trump has left only two choices for Iran:  For Iran to hit back hard.  Yes, a war with the United States will destroy Iran.   But Iran would take down much of the world with it, our global village would be destroyed.     Or, for Iran not to retaliate which would translate a self-destruct button by taking no action.  Unlikely.  No doubt, those carrying Solemani’s picture will have a say.

There is but one third way which requires the participation of all.  To remove and arrest Trump and his team for precipitating WW3 –  for actions that will inevitably usher in the death of millions if Americans don’t act.  But unlike Iran, America lacks heroes.  Trump has doomed us all.  It is a matter of time – and the clock is ticking.

*

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

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Censorship in Canada? Vanessa Beeley’s Talks on Syria

January 5th, 2020 by Prof. John Ryan

Vanessa Beeley is a British journalist who was invited to Canada in the fall of 2019 to present talks in seven cities on the conflict in Syria. The sponsors of her speaking tour were several anti-war groups, including the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, and Peace Alliance in Winnipeg.

Beeley is an independent journalist and photographer who has worked extensively in the Middle East, including dangerous zones in Gaza, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In 2017 she was a finalist for the prestigious Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. In 2018 the British National Council for the Training of Journalists named her as one of the 238 most respected journalists in the UK. In 2019 she was one of the recipients of the Serena Shim Award for uncompromising integrity in journalism.

Over a number of years, at considerable risk to her life, Beeley has travelled to Syria on several occasions to report on the conflict between the Syrian army and a variety of forces, largely foreign mercenaries, who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government. A United Nations report has stated that more than 40,000 foreign fighters from 110 countries may have travelled to Syria and Iraq to join terrorist groups.

In the course of her first-hand research on Syria, Beeley has also obtained information on the operations of the White Helmets, a supposedly “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” force dedicated to saving the lives of Syrian citizens in war zones.

In her various ensuing publications, with extensive documentation and photographic evidence, she has presented a compelling account of what is occurring in Syria. Fortunately, she is not alone in presenting such information. There are several other journalists who have done almost comparable first-hand accounts. These include Canada’s Eva Bartlett, and American journalists Max Blumenthal, Rania Khalek and Anya Parampil.

Because the reports of these few investigative journalists vary dramatically from what is presented by the mainstream media in the United States, Canada and much of Europe, a malicious and concerted campaign has developed to malign and discredit these journalists, largely in the interests of US foreign policy regarding Syria. For so-called “experts” and journalists who provide media cover to Syria’s jihadist insurgency, the three American journalists had crossed a line. The ensuing character assassination campaign against the three American “rogue” journalists has been revealed in reportage by MintPress News.

These three journalists point out that a number of Western reporters have gone to Islamist-held regions in Syria and then presented views that the terrorists are justified in trying to overthrow the Syrian government. Because of this, Anya Parampil states that it is critically important to report on the life of ordinary Syrians not under terrorist control. According to Parampil:

This group of Syrians represents the vast majority of the country, despite the fact that we never hear from them in corporate media. It is my job, as a U.S. journalist with the privilege of working independently, to visit countries and speak to people impacted by the policies of Washington, particularly those who are excluded from the mainstream narrative. Unless we hear from these people, the U.S. public will be more willing to support military and economic war against the Syrian people. That is why CNN and other outlets act as though they’re invisible. The media has been weaponized against the Syrian people.

Max Blumenthal commented:

“My ability to convey this reality back to the U.S. public was apparently such a threat to an unusually vocal echo chamber of regime-change fanatics that I was branded a Nazi … Their attacks were part and parcel of the Western campaign to isolate Syrians from the rest of the world, and all because their government held off a multi-billion dollar proxy war that would have transformed their country into an even more harrowing version of Libya if it had succeeded.”

As for Beeley, as soon as her Canada speaking tour was announced, Huffington Post was alerted and in short order two highly defamatory articles on her appeared. The Post reporters, Emilie Clavel and Chris York, who have never been to Syria, present the standard mainstream media accusation that President Assad heads “the 21st century’s most murderous regime” and was basically responsible for the war and for the bulk of the casualties. To support their views, they rely on other writers who claim “Beeley was the Syrian conflict’s goddess of propaganda.”

Beeley was scheduled to speak at the University of Montreal; when some criticism was voiced, a University spokesperson stated that “a university is a place of debates and one of its cornerstones is academic freedom.” Yet, after the defamatory reports about Beeley came out, her talk was cancelled. The Post’s Chris York tweeted that “The University of Montreal has cancelled a planned talk by Vanessa Beeley after it was pointed out that she is a conspiracy theorist, not a journalist.” Strange that after a US publication’s blatant propaganda attack on an experienced war correspondent, the University of Montreal now appears not to be a place of “academic freedom.”

After Montreal, Beeley was scheduled to speak in Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga, Regina and Winnipeg. Despite concerted de-platforming efforts in all these cities, she did manage to present her talks. It was only in Montreal, Hamilton and Winnipeg that it was necessary to secure alternate venues because of the pressure to block her presentations.

Beeley’s speaking tour ended in Winnipeg, and here she was denied a venue, at short notice, not only at the University of Winnipeg but also at the Winnipeg Millennium Library. On investigation, it turns out that the senior administration at the university had not been informed of Beeley’s talk, so the decision to deny a venue was made at some lower level, without proper authorization. As such, it would be unfair to blame the university for this matter.

In the case of the Millennium Library, a senior spokesperson stated that Beeley’s proposed talk “would not comply with [the library’s] guidelines.” When pressed on the matter, the spokesperson said that in his personal opinion the contents of the proposed talk could be construed as “hate speech” and as such Beeley would not be permitted to speak there.

Beeley was finally booked to give her talk on December 12, with practically no public notice, at the Winnipeg Chilean Association on Burrows Avenue.

I find it ironic that people writing in the comfort and safety at their desks in the US, UK and Canada about the war in Syria and the White Helmets are given more credence by officials in some public institutions than journalists such as Beeley and others who actually go to Syria to see the situation first-hand.

I attended Beeley’s highly informative session in Winnipeg and had a discussion with her before and after the talk. Her hour-long presentation was fully documented and supported by appropriate photographs. For anyone to criticize her presentation as “hate speech” is preposterous. It is a profound pity that Canadian university students and a wider section of the public were prevented from hearing her perspective.

I have always had a keen interest in foreign affairs and during my years of teaching at the University of Winnipeg, my courses often involved such matters. Since my retirement, I have had more time to devote to what is going on in the world. As such, during these years I have written and published a wide range of articles on a variety of issues, including matters involving Syria and the White Helmets.

In the case of the White Helmets, I immediately discovered that they operated only in areas held by Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra terrorist forces – and nowhere else in Syria. This being the case, how could they claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” when they were nowhere to be found in the rest of Syria?

The White Helmets organization was created and funded by US and British efforts back in March of 2013, with an initial input of $23 million by USAID (US Agency for International Development). Since then they’ve received over $100 million, including at least CDN$7.5 million. Max Blumenthal has explored in some detail the various funding resources and relationships that the White Helmets draw on, mostly in the US and Europe. Overall, the CIA has spent over $1 billion on arming and training the so-called Syrian “rebels” who in actuality constitute a variety of Al-Qaeda forces.

A disturbing aspect of the White Helmets is their close association with Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra forces. In several cases their headquarters are in the same building with these terrorist groups. Videos are also available that show their gross disrespect for the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers (several White Helmets were filmed giving the victory sign while standing on a heap of dead Syrian soldiers on the way to being dumped in the trash).

If the White Helmets devoted their activities solely to save the lives of people caught up in war zones, that would be commendable and beyond reproach, but that is not the case. A major part of their activities is devoted to media reports and public relations, and it seems that this is what draws a significant portion of their funding while constituting the primary reason for their creation. In fact, it appears the White Helmets use search and rescue activities as a cover-up to demonize Syrian President Assad and help terrorists overthrow the Syrian government.

As renowned journalist John Pilger put it, the White Helmets are a “propaganda construct,” an Al-Qaeda support group, whose prime purpose is to try to put a veneer of respectability on the vile head-chopping terrorists in Syria.

Given all this, I was astounded to discover that in the late summer of 2016, the federal NDP had recommended to the federal government that Canada should nominate the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize. In response to this I wrote an open letter to the NDP denouncing their ill-considered proposal. Fortunately, Stéphane Dion, our Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, ignored their request. My open letter was posted by Canadian Dimension and it was later reposted on two other sites.

Then in the summer of 2018 Canada announced that it would take in a sizeable number of White Helmets just before the terrorist area in which they operated was recaptured by the Syrian army. I wrote an article denouncing this questionable course of action.

I discussed how Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and a former member of the CIA, in a detailed article stated that at the present time there is no bigger fraud than the story of the White Helmets. The story that’s been put forth is that with the Syrian army closing in on the last White Helmet affiliates still fighting in the country, the Israeli government, aided by the US, “staged an emergency humanitarian evacuation” of 800 White Helmet members, including their families, to Israel and then on to Jordan. Pleas were then put forth to resettle them in the US, Britain, Germany and other countries.

Near the end of 2015 I wrote an article that presented the background on the various terrorist groups, going back to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. I will cite a concluding paragraph:

When ISIS beheaded two American journalists, there was outrage and denunciation throughout the West, but when the same ISIS beheaded hundreds of Syrian soldiers, and meticulously filmed these war crimes, this was hardly reported anywhere. In addition, almost from the very beginning of the Syrian tragedy, al-Qaeda groups have been killing and torturing not only soldiers but police, government workers and officials, journalists, Christian church people, aid workers, women and children, as well as suicide bombings in market places. All this was covered up in the mainstream media, and when the Syrian government correctly denounced this as terrorism, this was ignored or denounced as “Assad’s propaganda.”

Being aware of this background, nothing that Beeley stated in her talk surprised me. What she stated was just an update to what I had already known. What was new to me was her account of the recent death of James Le Mesurier, a former British military officer, who founded the White Helmets in 2014. He was found dead in Istanbul this past November 11 and it is still uncertain if he was murdered or if he committed suicide. Almost immediately afterwards, Beeley wrote a lengthy and well-researched article about his mysterious death. I would like to include a reference to this, especially as an example of the quality of Beeley’s research and writing style. And yet this is the person who is accused of presenting hate speech and not worthy of being heard.

The thought has occurred to me that since my views on Syria and the White Helmets are identical to those of Beeley, suppose I proposed to give a talk at a Canadian university or public library. Would I, as a retired professor and senior scholar, be blocked in the way that Beeley was? Given the precedent of what happened to her, why should I be treated any differently?

Frankly, I can hardly believe what has happened. To me it is outrageous that a person of Beeley’s credibility as an investigative journalist and the author of a wide range of superbly documented articles and books should be barred from presenting a talk on a critically important subject at a Canadian university or a public library. What has happened to our supposed “freedom of speech”?

*

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

This article was originally published on Canadian Dimension.

John Ryan, Ph.D., is a retired professor of geography and a senior scholar at the University of Winnipeg.

Featured image is from Canadian Dimension

“Everyone wants the man who is still searching to have already reached his conclusions.  A thousand voices are already telling him what he has found, and yet he knows he hasn’t found anything. Should he search on and let them talk?  Of course.” – Albert Camus, “The Enigma” in Lyrical and Critical Essays

Albert Camus’ search ended sixty years ago on January 4, 1960, the day he died. Although he had already written The Stranger, The Rebel, The Plague, and The Fall, and had won the Nobel Prize for Literature, he felt his true work had barely begun. Alongside the car in which he died, his briefcase lay in the mud.  In it was the uncompleted, hand-written manuscript of his final quest, The First Man, an autobiographical novel written in a raw emotional and lyrical style that was liberating him from the prison of a classical form he felt compelled to escape.  He was on his way to a new freedom, in writing and in life, when he was cut down.  The book was published posthumously in 1994 by his daughter and son.  It is a beautiful peek into a reserved man’s youthful inner development, the loneliness of a poor boy made fatherless by an absurd war, and the ways in which the boy “had to learn by himself, to grow alone, in fortitude, in strength, find his own morality and truth.”  It explains a lot about Camus’ later writing and why, at the end of his life, he was so isolated and criticized by the right, left, and center for his various political positions.

He could not be pigeonholed. This drove many crazy.  His allegiance was to truth, not ideologies.  He was not a partisan in the Cold War between the U.S./NATO and the U.S.S.R.  An artist compelled by conscience and history to enter the political arena, he spoke in defense of the poor, oppressed, and powerless.  Among his enemies were liberal imperialism and Soviet Marxism, abstract ideologies used to murder and enslave people around the world.  He opposed state murder, terrorism, and warfare from all quarters. He was an artistic anarchist with a passionate spiritual hunger and an austere and moral Don Juan.  He was a mystery to himself in many ways. He made mistakes. But he was honest and honorable.

He is the kind of thinker we need today.  But he is still easily used and abused by those with their own agendas, and in that way, he is emblematic of the ways the search for truth today can be manipulated.  It is a sly game, one that only can start to make sense when one puts concentrated effort into unraveling the endless propaganda that is the fabric of our lives today.

Anyone who has followed the evidence knows that Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate, the anti-Putin hysteria, and the new Cold War is a fabrication concocted by deep-state intelligence and political forces in the United States and the West.  Of course, many will deny these facts. Anti-Russia hysteria has filled the airwaves for years.  It is pure propaganda that is manna from heaven for liberals and conservatives wishing to maintain their religious belief in American holiness, even as the U.S./NATO has surrounded Russia with military forces.  Anything that can intensify this mania is used by the corporate media. It is a very dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship.  For many people, studying such issues in depth is beside the point.  As Camus wrote in 1954, “Today one takes a side based on the reading of an article.” In 2020 it may be just a headline.

Here is a case in point. Perhaps minor, perhaps not.  A relative, knowing I had previously written about a book claiming that Camus’ death in a car was not an accident but an assassination carried out by the KGB, recently sent me a link to an article in The Guardian, the paper that published a tiny portion of the Edward Snowden documents after allowing the Intelligence authorities to censor them, then oversaw the destruction of all Snowden’s computer documents, and finally became a full-time mouthpiece for the security state.  The article was entitled: “New Book Claims Albert Camus Was Murdered by the KGB.”  The article was published on Dec 2, 2019 and my relative naturally assumed it was a new book.

So did I, but I didn’t know there was a new book.  A year ago I had written about a book, Camus deve morire (Camus Must Die), published only in Italian in 2013 by the Italian writer Giovanni Catelli, that claims that Camus was assassinated by the KGB.  So I read the article and was perplexed.

There is no new book; there are new translations into French and Spanish of the same book from 2013. The French edition has a forward by the American writer Paul Auster, who finds Catelli’s argument convincing.  More than a year ago Catelli had kindly sent me an English version of his book, which I had read before writing about it, and I assume I am the only person to have read the book in English.  I think it is persuasive, but not dispositive.

The recent Guardian article was picked up by various publications that repeated much of it, adding incorrectly that The Guardian interviewed Catelli, etc., implying that it was all new.  This was picked up by other publications that repeated this plus other erroneous claims, including one from a linked  New Yorker article from 2014 that says, as do many others, that Catelli’s claims of a KGB hit on Camus couldn’t be true because Camus had a train ticket in his pocket and only made a last minute decision to ride in the car back to Paris with his friend Michel Gallimard and his family.  This is false, but it fits into the attractive theme of “an absurd death.” The truth is Camus had written a letter on December 30 to Maria Casarès that he would be taking a car, not the train, adding – believe it or not – that he would be arriving on Tuesday, January 4, “taking into account surprises on the road.” Then on the night of January 2, he had a nightmare in which he was pursued by four faceless men on a country road where he got into a car to escape and another faceless man drove the car straight into the side of a house, as Camus awoke terrified.

As I said, it’s a sly game, this publication business where little things can mean a lot, or not.  Subtle points.  Many mistakes.  Some out of ignorance, others intentional.  Things repeated.  The timing often important to send implied messages.

This speculation about Camus’ death began in 2011 when the media were abuzz with a report out of Italy that, rather than an accident, Camus may have been assassinated by the Soviet KGB for his powerful criticism of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, their massacre of Hungarian freedom fighters, and for his defense and advocacy of Boris Pasternak and his novel, Doctor Zhivago, among other things. For those who study history, all these issues are complicated by CIA involvement, which is not to say that Soviet forces did not massacre Hungarian freedom fighters or that Pasternak should not have been defended and the massacres condemned. Those things are clear, while others are murky, as was then and is now the CIA’s intention in so many terrible events around the world.  This murkiness is created by the mass media that does the bidding of the intelligence agencies.

These reports of a KGB hit on Camus were based on an article in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, and came from the remarks of Catelli, an Italian academic, Slavic scholar, and poet. Catelli said that he had read in a diary, published as a book, Ceĺ́ýzͮivot, written by Jan Zábrana, a well-known poet and translator of Doctor Zhivago, the following:

I heard something very strange from the mouth of a man who knew lots of things and had very informed sources.  According to him, the accident that had cost Albert Camus his life in 1960 was organized by Soviet spies. They damaged the tyre on the car using a sophisticated piece of equipment that cut or made a hole at speed.

This claim was quickly and broadly rejected by Camus’ scholars and it just as quickly disappeared from view.

But in 2013 Catelli published Camus Must Die that suggests there may be more to it than those early dismissals of the Corriere della Sera report indicate. One has only to harken back to the 2013 mysterious death of journalist Michael Hastings in the United States when his car accelerated to over 100 miles per hour and exploded against a tree on a straight road in Los Angeles to make one think twice, maybe more. To question that death is of course to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, a bit of mind control straight from the CIA’s playbook.

Camus and Hastings. Tree lined straight roads, no traffic, outspoken writers, anomalous crashes, different countries and eras – tales to make one wonder. And probe and research if one is so inclined.  Read more than one article.  Perhaps a book or two.

Whatever the cause of Albert Camus’ death, however, it is clear that we could use his voice today.  I believe we should honor and remember him on this day that he died, for as an artist of his time, an artist for our time and all time, he tried to serve both beauty and suffering, to defend the innocent in this murderous world. Quintessentially a man of his age, he was haunted by images that haunt us still, in particular those of being locked in an absurd prison threatened by madmen brandishing weapons small and large, ready to blow this beautiful world to smithereens with weapons conjured out of their hubristic, Promethean dreams of conquest and power.

For we live in plague time, and the plague lives in us.  Like the inhabitants of the rat-infested French-Algerian city of Oran in Camus’s The Plague, the United States is “peopled with sleep walkers,” pseudo-innocents, who are “chiefly aware of what ruffled the normal tenor of their lives or affected their interests.” That their own government, no matter what political party is in power (both working for deep-state, elite interests led by the organized criminals of the CIA), is the disseminator of a world-wide plague of virulent violence, must be denied and divorced from consensus reality. These plague-stricken deaths visited on millions around the world – by Clinton, the Bushes, Obama, Trump – must be denied by diverting attention to partisan politics that elicit outrage after outrage by the various factions and their minions.

The true plague, the bedrock of a nation continually waging wars against the world, is avoided. Presently, it is the liberals that are “shocked” that Trump is the President as he bombs Iraq and assassinates Iranian leaders. These are the same people who went silent for the last eight years as Obama ravaged the world and lied about his cruel policies. Their outrage over Trump’s victory reeked of bad faith, with most of them supporting Hillary Clinton, a neo-liberal war-monger par excellence. Further “shocks” will follow when Trump leaves office and the latest neo-liberal avatar succeeds him, whether that is this year or in 2024; conservatives will resume their harangues and protestations, just as they have done during Obama’s reign. The two war parties will exchange insults as their followers are outraged and the American Empire, built on the disease of violence, will roll along or perhaps disintegrate. No one knows. But the plague will rage on and the main stream corporate media will play along by sowing confusion and telling lies in big and little ways.

For “decent folks must be allowed to sleep at night,” says the character Tarrou sarcastically in The Plague; he is a man who has lost his ability to “sleep well” since he witnessed a man’s execution where the “bullets make a hole into which you could thrust your fist.”  He awakens to the realization that he “had an indirect hand in the deaths of thousands of people.”  He loses any peace he had and vows to resist the plague in every way he can. “For many years I’ve been ashamed,” he says, “mortally ashamed, of having been, even with the best intentions, even at many removes, a murderer in my turn.”

The rats are dying in the streets. They are our rats, diseased by us. They have emerged from the underworld of a nation plagued by its denial. Unconscious evil bubbles up.  We are an infected people. Worry and irritation – “these are not feelings with which to confront plague.” But we don’t seem ashamed of our complicity in our government’s crimes around the world. Camus knew better. He warned us,

It’s a wearying business being plague-stricken.  But it’s still more wearying to refuse to be it. That’s why everybody in the world looks so tired; everyone is more or less sick of plague. But that is why some of us, those who want to get the plague out of their systems, feel such desperate weariness.

Yet the fight against the plague must go on; that was Camus’ message.  If not, you will be destroyed by your own complicity in evil.  You will be plagued by your own hand.

Were Camus alive today, he would no doubt be struck by the constant stream of news reports exemplifying the hubris of our technological rationality, a mode of thinking that has made a fetish out of technology, worships efficiency, and considers any critical protest as irrational.   For Camus was deeply influenced by ancient Greek philosophy. He wrote,

Greek thought was always based on the idea of limits.  Nothing was carried to extremes, neither religion nor reason, because Greek thought denied nothing, neither reason nor religion …. And, even though we do it in diverse ways, we extol one thing and one alone: a future world in which reason will reign supreme.

He would be appalled by the arrogance of a nation led by technocratic experts and politicians who have embraced the power of pure reason devoid of values.  Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, the embrace of technical reason, which is innately amoral, has caused many of the problems we seem unable to remedy.  These include environmental catastrophe, high-tech wars, GM foods, drone killings, drug addiction, and nuclear weapons, to name but a few.  For such problems created by technology, our esteemed leaders have technological answers. The high-priests of this technological complex – organization types all – use the technology and control the information which they then present as “facts” to justify their actions.  The absurdity of this vicious circle is lost on them.  Their unstated assumption: We have a prohibition to prohibit.  If it can be done, it will be done.  We have no limits.

Camus thought differently:

In our madness, we push back the eternal limits, and at once Furies swoop down upon us to destroy. Nemesis, the goddess of moderation, not of vengeance, is watching.  She chastises, ruthlessly, all those who go beyond the limit.

Camus reminds us that we must break free from the “mind-forged manacles” that render us prisoners of hopelessness. This world as a prison is a metaphor that has a long and popular tradition.  In the past hundred or more years, however, with the secularization of Western culture and the perceived withdrawal of God, the doors of this prison have shut upon the popular imagination, with growing numbers of people feeling trapped in an alien universe, no longer able to bridge the gulf between themselves and an absent God.  Death, once the open avenue to the free life of eternity, has for many become the symbol of the absurdity of existence and the futility of escape.  “There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man’s feeling that life here and now is the only life there is,” wrote George Orwell in 1944.

Camus was haunted by these images, intensified as they were by a life of personal isolation beginning with the death of his father in World War I when he was a year old and continuing throughout his upbringing by a half-deaf, emotionally sterile mother.  His entire life, including his tragic art, was an attempt to find a way out of this closed world.  This was his search.

That is why he continues to speak today to those who grapple with the same enigmas, those who strive to find hope and faith to defend the defenseless and revel in the glory of living simultaneously.  Not absurdly, he left clues to that quest in his briefcase on the road where he died – the unfinished manuscript to his beautiful Le Premier Homme(The First Man).  It was as if, whether he died in an accident or was murdered, the first man was going to have the last word.

In his last novel, The Fall, he left us Jean Baptiste Clamence, a nihilist worthy of our times, a lawyer dedicated to abstract justice, a phony actor who, in the name of absolute sincerity, lies in order to mask his destructive nihilism that knows no bounds. He reminds me of our power elites. His maxim cuts to the heart of our modern madness:

When one has no character, one has to apply a method.

Albert Camus had character.  Let us honor him.

I can imagine Camus saying with Hamlet:

Oh, I could tell you –

But let it be, Horatio, I am dead;

Thou livest; report to me and my cause aright

To the unsatisfied.

Let us do just that.

*

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘The Searching Life and Enigmatic Death of Albert Camus’
  • Tags:

 “During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes have invariably meted out to them relentless persecution, and received their teachings with the most savage hostility, most furious hatred, and a ruthless campaign of lies and slanders.”[1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The U.S. and its allies have been at work undermining the sovereign Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for several years, through sanctions, at least one assassination attempt, and efforts to discredit Venezuela’s elections.

But it was in the early months of 2019 that America played the regime change card in this geostrategic poker game. While Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was being sworn in for a second term in high office, opposition forces were orchestrating an effective coup d’etat. A relatively unknown politician by the name of Juan Guaido proclaimed himself interim president with the backing of the U.S., Canada, the European Union and the countries and several Latin American nations.

When the military stayed loyal to the elected president, and the masses marched in under-reported parades of support for Hugo Chavez’s chosen successor, a second attempt was launched which involved a caravan of aid supplies being stopped at the Columbia-Venezuela border. The official line parroted by mainstream media outlets was that Maduro’s forces were destroying aid intended for the desperate Venezuelan citizens being victimized by a callous dictator. It would later be revealed however that the opposition forces were responsible for the burning of these vital supplies.[2]

In the weeks and months that would follow, more calamities would be visited on the Venezuelan people, such as the power failures in March. Nevertheless, as the year 2019 has come to an end, it would seem that these efforts to dislodge President Maduro from power have proven to be unsuccessful.

The Venezuelan situation was one of the highlights of the 2019 annual forum of the World Association for Political Economy (WAPE). As detailed in the last episode, WAPE is an international academic organization dedicated to utilizing modern Marxist economics to analyze and study the world economy, reveal its laws of development, and offer policies to promote economic and social progress on the national and global levels. In her keynote address, Venezuelan-Canadian sociologist Maria Páez Victor elaborates on the dynamics affecting her countrymen, breaking down the social and economic factors in play, and places the crisis in a historical and geopolitical context.

The talk, entitled Venezuela: Disturbing Echoes of History builds her thesis around answering three basic questions – 1) What is really happening in Venezuela, 2) Why is it happening, and 3) What will happen next?

Audio of this talk was recorded by Paul Graham. The unabridged speech is embedded below.

Dr. Maria Páez Victor is a sociologist, born in Venezuela and educated in Caracas, New York, Mexico City, England and Canada. For several years she taught the sociology of health and medicine as well as health and environmental policies at the University of Toronto. Dr. Páez Victor has national and international experience in policy analysis and impact assessment, with expertise in the areas of health, environment, and energy. She is an active member of the Latin American community in Canada. She is also the author of “Liberty or Death! – the life and campaigns of Richard L. Vowell, British Legionnaire and Commander, hero and patriot of the Americas” (2013) (Tattered Flag, UK).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

  1. V.I. Ulianov (Lenin), “The State and Revolution”
  2. nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html

“You are not from the castle. You are not from the village. You are nothing.” Franz Kafka, “The Castle”

“If there were right laws, if there were a pathway, we would stand in line…. Because this country has a broken, outdated immigration system, we cannot legalize ourselves. There is no pathway to citizenship for people like us,” Bambadjan Bamba, DACA-recipient and “Black Panther” actor, speaking in front of the Supreme Court, November 2019

Daniella Ramírez arrived at her hotel job in Los Angeles at 4:45 AM on December 20, 2019. Three white, unmarked vans were idling nearby, which seemed a little odd but she ignored them on her way to the entrance. As she turned to open the door, several men rushed, grabbed and handcuffed her. Eventually they informed her she was under arrest by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

She had only a short moment to phone a friend to say the men were being very rough with her before the line went dead. On Sunday, her family learned she was being held in Adelanto Detention Center, a GEO Corporation private immigration jail that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) itself qualified as having “serious health and safety issues” such as “nooses in detainee cells”.

Daniella is a 23 year old female with no criminal record. She has lived in the United States since she was brought there by her parents when she was 10 years old. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) gave her, and about 700,000 other undocumented young people in the United States, a valid driver’s licence, a work permit, and a reprieve from deportation. She has been working at the hotel for the last two years, during which time her DACA permit expired. People were being arrested when they reapply, even if they were paying a lawyer. There was no right way, there still is no right way. She just had to keep going and hope for the best.

Warning on Immigration Equality’s website

Her arrest is but one of a number of actions that the federal government is taking as the country awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on ending DACA after justices met in early November.

According to immigration attorneys, ICE suddenly began reopening deportation cases against DACA-holders at the end of October in anticipation of what the current federal government would consider a favorable ruling. And now, ICE has made it official in an email to CNN:

“ICE confirmed to CNN that all DACA recipients whose deportation cases have been administratively closed can expect to see them reopened. In an email, the agency stated that ‘re-calendaring of administratively closed cases is occurring nationwide and not isolated to a particular state or region.’”

The move is particularly egregious in light of the strict requirements to obtain DACA status. Formulated to protect immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children and were never granted legal status, DACA has age, residency, educational and legal requirements, and carries hefty fees. Misdemeanors disqualify applicants.

Despite this, President Donald Trump’s insisted in a November 12 tweet that, “Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals.” His contention is contradicted by the government’s own calculations that DACA-recipients have an exceptionally low arrest rate of 6.7% compared to 30% for the general population, according to the Cato Institute. PolitiFact and NBCMiami rated the tweet with a resounding “False”.

DACA is/was available to persons up to the age of 31 who had come to the United States when they were younger than 16. Some of them, as well as others who could not apply, already have children. The Comité Popular Somos Raleigh (We Are Raleigh Popular Committee) held a “posada” this season for children whose parents have been deported. The “posada” is a traditional Mexican celebration that recreates the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph’s search for a place to rest and give birth to the baby Jesus, and includes the famous breaking of the piñata, spilling treats for all the children.

Speaking to local newspaper Qué Pasa, committee organizer Griselda Alonzo said that her group organized the event in light of the marked increase in raids in the region and how acutely this is affecting the children left behind.

“The committee was formed to support these families because sometimes they call at midnight because there was a raid and somebody was detained. The committee works to help get people out of jail, raise bond money, or take the children to visit their relatives in jail,” Griselda explained. “Even though for some of them it’s been over a year, the pain is still there, and the holidays are very sad and become more a period of mourning than of celebration. That’s why we started to do [the posada].”

 

*

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

Featured image is from Univision

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Immigration (ICE) Accelerates Violent Arrests of (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) DACA Holders
  • Tags: ,

The following article from the German weekly newspaper Der Freitag is a vanishingly rare example of both sides of the debate about new GM techniques getting coverage in the mainstream media.

All too often journalists allow GM promoters to determine the narrative on topics like gene editing while the concerns of critical scientists go unreported.

The problem with that, as Dr Michael Antoniou notes in the article, is that, “Those who work on the development of such plants seem to believe almost blindly in their own propaganda regarding the precision and predictability and thus in the safety of their products – without the necessary studies to prove their position.”

The author of the Der Freitag article, Angela Lieber, was awarded the Salus-Medienpreis (Salus Media Prize) 2019 for her work on this article.

***

Who’s thinking outside the box?

by Angela Lieber
Der Frietag, 22 Nov 2019
English translation of German language article by Deepl/Google Translate/GMWatch

Gene editing: The ruling of the European Court of Justice divides the agricultural sector. What potential do new genetic engineering techniques hold for plant breeding?

Virus-resistant cucumbers, allergen-free peanuts, and maize that better withstands drought and heat: The list of current research projects is long, as are the advantages that breeders and seed companies around the world hope to see from the use of new biotechnological processes in agriculture. With the help of so-called “genome editing methods” such as the gene scissors CRISPR/Cas, the genome of useful plants can be changed precisely and in the shortest possible time. It’s not only in this country that farmers and consumers could benefit from such types of fruit and vegetables.

Globally, an important contribution to the nutrition of the growing world population would be made – according to the advocates of the new technologies. In addition, pesticide use could be reduced and food ingredients could be changed as needed. Holger Elfes, press spokesman for Bayer CropScience, summarizes the potential of the new technologies: “We expect a drastic acceleration in the breeding of new varieties that are less susceptible to diseases, pests or drought – and of course achieve a higher yield” – a process that in conventional breeding can take up to ten years or longer could be halved with the new methods. “This enables farmers to react more quickly to emerging plant diseases or changing climate cycles.”

From sick apples …

In view of these promising possibilities, even some representatives of the organic industry have recently raised the question of whether the use of the new methods should be rejected in principle – especially since their intervention in the genetic material is less serious than that in the context of classic genetic engineering. Because, in the latter case, DNA from bacteria or animals was sometimes introduced into the genome of maize, oilseed rape or soybean, foreign DNA is rarely used in the new technologies. Instead, you can change genes in a targeted manner or transfer genes from related species into the plant’s genetic makeup. Urs Niggli, Director of the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (Fibl) in Switzerland, also recently spoke in favour of using the CRISPR/Cas gene scissors to make apples resistant to apple scab – one of the most important apple diseases worldwide. For this purpose, he suggested that the resistance gene of the Japanese crab apple (malus floribunda) be introduced into today’s cultivated apples. (Lebensmittelzeitung 06/2018).

For orchardist and apple grower Hans-Joachim Bannier from Bielefeld, looking at the history of modern apple cultivation, it would become clear that this idea – “to believe that a single gene can save a species that has long since developed in a risky direction” – is fundamentally wrong, says Bannier. He explains: “For around 80 years, almost only five apple varieties and their descendants have been grown worldwide: Golden Delicious, Cox Orange, Jonathan, McIntosh and Red Delicious. The reason these varieties are so popular is because they bloom more often and therefore deliver higher yields – but only if you spray them heavily. ”The apples are actually highly susceptible to disease. And only since the chemical industry began supplying the appropriate pesticides in 1930 did it suddenly become possible to grow them on a large scale.

“When the varieties were used in organic farming in the 1980s, it quickly became clear that they were infected by pathogens far too often,” Bannier continues. But instead of going back to the old, somewhat less productive, but much more robust apple varieties, [breeders] simply crossed the already known resistance gene of the Japanese crab apple in the classic way [by breeding] into the disease-prone cultivated apples. “It is exactly the same gene that now they want to transfer back into the genome – but using genetic engineering,” says Bannier, shaking his head. To start with, the tactic with the resistance gene worked, but today the apple scab is back in many places. “Once the fungus has eluded the gene by mutation, the immunity of the apples collapses – and also because their rest of the genome is so susceptible: not only to apple scab, but also to mildew and other diseases.”

Short-term “solutions”

Bannier is therefore very concerned about current developments in plant breeding. Even with other fruits and vegetables, the main focus today is on disease-prone varieties that are only successful with the continuous use of pesticides. “This is a conflagration! And now the genetic engineers want to go in there and clear it bit by bit, by putting individual genes in an otherwise sick and genetically impoverished strain!” Of course, you could always offer and sell ‘solutions’ in this way: “But such resistances don’t last long. They break through pests and pathogens pretty quickly.”

It is different with many traditional varieties that can still be found in orchards today. “With these varieties, several genes are almost always responsible for immunity, for example with the ‘Seestermüher lemon apple’. It is not only productive, but also multi-resistant to scab, powdery mildew and fruit tree cancer.”

For Bannier, the fact that these apples are hardly known to any breeder today is a real mistake:“ We have well-trained molecular geneticists, but they no longer know the old varieties,” he scolds. “You can no longer study them at a university or institution of applied sciences” – one of the many reasons why the apple grower fights against the disappearance and forgetting of the old varieties. He regularly takes visitors through his orchard, where more than 300 varieties, some of which have been forgotten, thrive – and all without pesticides. Bannier is convinced: “What we need today is a return to locally adapted and genetically diverse varieties. Clearly, this breeding path is tedious. But the supposedly faster genetic engineering will not be able to solve the problems of modern agriculture in the long term!”

Felix zu Löwenstein, organic farmer and chairman of the organic umbrella association for the organic food industry (BÖLW) also criticizes the “tunnel vision of the genome” – as he puts it. When he first heard about CRISPR, there was talk of trying to keep a banana virus at bay through genetic engineering. “At that time, no one asked how smart it is that we are traveling around the world with a single type of banana that is also grown in huge plantations – banana, banana, banana, banana,” said Löwenstein. “We have created incredibly unstable systems with industrial agriculture. And if we now save them a little bit more by tinkering with the genetics of plants, then we will ignore the real problem.”

For him, it is therefore not a question of whether genome editing is good or bad in principle. The question is rather whether a technology is suitable for creating ecologically stable systems. “Quite apart from the fact that there are also risks that have to be assessed with great caution.”

Genetic engineering – yes or no?

It was precisely those potential risks that caused the judges of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg at the end of July to rule that all genome editing processes must be subjected to European genetic engineering law and that all resulting products (plants and animals) must be regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For months there had been speculation about whether the new technologies would be classified as conventional breeding methods and would therefore be released without safety assessment and labelling. Martin Häusling, Member of the European Parliament and agricultural policy spokesman for the Greens/EFA Group, is pleased with the clear verdict: “Now all plants that are bred with the new methods must be checked for possible risks before they are approved.”

In addition, there is a labelling requirement, thus retaining the freedom of choice for consumers to buy such products or not. “I am relieved that the ECJ made a decision based on the precautionary principle and verifiability,” said Häusling. “Consumers can now no longer be sold hidden genetically modified products and breeders know what material they are dealing with.”

At the Federal Association of German Plant Breeders (BDP), on the other hand, enthusiasm is limited. “The judgment surprised us. We have always advocated a differentiated assessment of the new breeding methods, according to which genetically modified organisms arise in some cases, but not in others,” said association chairwoman Stephanie Franck. In the run-up to the ECJ ruling, there was a fierce discussion about whether there could be exceptions in the event of regulation. In some cases, genome editing only triggers point mutations – similar to a natural mutation (e.g. caused by UV light) or mutations in the context of traditional breeding methods. And as long as a genome-edited product cannot be distinguished from a product from traditional breeding, it does not have to be regulated separately, or so the proponents argued.

For Michael Antoniou from King’s College in London, this debate has worrying features: “Genome editing is always a laboratory-based, genetic modification process and therefore per se leads to a genetically modified organism,” says the scientist, who has worked in the field of genetic research for human medicine for more than 30 years. Claims that one only has to look at the result and not the process by which a product is created are anything but scientific and are potentially dangerous. The particular method is absolutely crucial in science. “If you move away from this principle, possible side-effects and their consequences will be completely ignored!” And the molecular geneticist is convinced that there can be such side-effects.

Lack of risk research

Regardless of whether ZFN, TALEN, ODM or CRISPR/Cas is used, all genome editing processes follow a similar principle. First, the site that is to be changed must be found in the massive genome of the plant. For this purpose, special “probes” are constructed in the laboratory, which search the genetic material in order to dock onto the target sequence identified. The DNA double strand is then cut open with the aid of an enzyme coupled to the probe (hence the term “gene scissors”). In response to the cut, the plant’s own cell repair mechanisms come into force to “patch” the DNA break again. And it is precisely this process that is now used to bring about the desired change – for example, a point mutation or the inhibition or activation of a specific gene.

But although most genome editing processes change the gene structure at a predetermined point and are therefore very precise and targeted, there are potential sources of error – as scientist Antoniou explains. In addition to cuts at unintentional locations in the genome, neighboring genes can also be disrupted in addition to the actual target site. In addition, even intended changes could lead to unforeseen biochemical reactions. “All of this can change the nutritional profile of a plant from scratch – up to possible toxin and allergen production.”

Christoph Then, Managing Director of Testbiotech, an institute in Munich that critically examines the new biotechnology processes, also fears potential risks: “Of course, it is theoretically possible that genome editing can also result in plants that do no harm.” However, what is decisive are the possibilities that the system offers. “You can also use it to switch off entire synthetic routes or delete entire gene families that previously were not accessible via breeding.” And he doesn’t find convincing the argument that classical mutagenesis (breeding techniques that work with chemicals or radiation) that has been permitted [in conventional breeding] since the 1970s would change the genetic code much more extensively: “[In classical mutagenesis] you still use the mechanisms that evolution has developed for mutations. With the new genetic engineering, on the other hand, we intervene directly at the level of the DNA – that is another level of intervention,” says Then, who criticizes the lack of risk research in Germany in particular: “There are currently almost no government research programs on this.”

This is a fact that molecular geneticist Antoniou also criticizes on an international level: “Those who work on the development of such plants seem to believe almost blindly in their own propaganda regarding the precision and predictability and thus in the safety of their products – without the necessary studies to prove their position.” From his point of view, the ECJ judgment is therefore clearly to be welcomed – especially for the consumer: “Because there is now an adequate regulation and safety assessment of these products.”

In the patent jungle

But what does the ECJ decision mean for small and medium-sized plant breeders in Europe? After all, many of them had high hopes for the new technologies – not least because they are much cheaper to use than the methods of classic genetic engineering. It suddenly seemed possible to keep up with the big seed companies. Accordingly, after the verdict was pronounced, the Bund Deutscher Plant Breeders were disappointed: “Now all plants that are developed with the help of the new breeding methods have to go through the time-consuming and financially complex approval process,” said association chairman Franck. Against this background, plant breeders see little prospect of using the methods in the development of new varieties.

“It’s true that EU approval for genetically modified plants costs time and money,” admits Christoph Then, “but I don’t think this is an absolute market obstacle for smaller companies if they calculate that they will have products afterwards that are actually in demand by farmers and consumers.” However, these small companies are not able to survive in the context of patents. In contrast to traditional breeding methods, all genome editing applications are in principle patentable. “And this is where the large corporations are currently massively laying down their claims: DowDuPont has already submitted around 50 international applications, ‘Baysanto’ around 30, and Calyxt, Syngenta and BASF are also actively involved.” Only a few patents have so far been registered by smaller breeders.

For Heike Moldenhauer, formerly Head of Genetic Engineering at the Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation (BUND), this is a clear indication that deregulation of the new technologies would not have strengthened the competitiveness of small breeders – on the contrary: “The little ones could research and develop, but as soon as they brought a variety to the market and wanted to offer it commercially, they would have to deal with the patent question – and in the best case would have to pay license fees or in the worst case a patent infringement fee.” In general, the patent system, which involves expensive lawyers and litigation, could only be afforded by large corporations with the appropriate financial resources.

Christoph Then also believes this and refers to the example of the USA: “There, the patents in connection with classic genetic engineering have contributed to the fact that the medium-sized plant breeders have almost completely disappeared.” So whoever really wants the new gene-editing processes to be used by smaller breeders, must first abolish the patents. Heike Moldenhauer therefore advocates a corresponding amendment to the EU patent directive: “To do this, however, the EU Commission would have to take the initiative – but there is too little pressure from the member states. Or too much lobbying from those who profit from the status quo.”

Future challenges

So what’s going to happen in the future? Is gene editing, with its potential opportunities, but also risks, now being slowed down in Europe? Heike Moldenhauer is convinced that it will be more difficult for agricultural companies to sell gene-edited seeds in Europe. “Because they now have to be labelled as ‘genetically modified’ and marketed just like the plants and products that result from them.” A fact that will also have consequences for the import sector. In the USA, for example, a few genome-edited products have already been released without regulation and safety assessment. For a corresponding approval in Europe, their genetically engineered origin will now have to be communicated openly – including transparent detection procedures. “The ruling by the European Court of Justice obliges the EU Commission to enforce the laws applicable to Europe against our trading partners,” comments Moldenhauer. “Anything else would be a clear violation of the law.”

As far as plant growing itself is concerned, the new technologies can of course continue to be used for research and breeding – also in Europe. “The judges didn’t give an evaluation for or against gene editing. They only correctly stated that the processes and products fall under the currently applicable genetic engineering law,” explains Felix zu Löwenstein. And there are already a number of promising projects that point to the future potential of new technologies, for example in the area of ​​drought and heat tolerance of crops. For example, researchers in the United States have succeeded in increasing the tolerance of maize to water shortages, as well as that of soybeans. However, Heike Moldenhauer remains skeptical: “Not a single new crop with these properties is yet on the market.”

Tolerance features in particular are highly complex and are based on the interplay of numerous genetic factors. For this reason, conventional, holistic cross-breeding is more suited to achieving such traits. “The reality of the products developed so far with genome editing is a herbicide-resistant oilseed rape that increases the use of chemicals in the field, and a non-browning mushroom that you can no longer tell when it is old,” says Moldenhauer. Therefore she personally does not believe that the new genetic engineering can provide the solution to current and future challenges in agriculture – a view shared by molecular geneticist Antoniou: “Genetic engineering earns more because it is patented. However, it is not what we have been waiting for – not even with a view to the rest of the world population.” Especially in the poorer regions of Africa and Asia, genetic engineering leads above all to the certainty that the centuries-old knowledge of regional varieties would be wiped out and dependency of farmers on patents would further increase. This is different from ecological management methods, which do not require any patented technologies. Using such methods, the skills and knowledge of the local farmers are preserved. “And that is the real basis for global food security.”

Need for discussion

Heike Moldenhauer of BUND does not believe that the last word has been spoken with the judgment of the European Court of Justice: “For large companies, it is a billion dollar business. So I suspect that they will push to change the genetic engineering regulations to suit them and to introduce a new genetic engineering definition that excludes gene-edited plants. “Christoph Then from Testbiotech also remains thoughtful:” A large part of the population is still critical of genetic engineering, but so far we have had relatively little discussion about the new methods. It remains to be seen whether and how genetic engineering will prevail in Europe,” says Then – and adds:“ We are only at the beginning and not at the end of the necessary social debate!”

*

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

Featured image is from GMWatch

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gene-Editing. New Genetic Engineering Techniques, Yes or No? “Who’s Thinking Outside the Box?”
  • Tags: , ,

Neoliberalism and the Killing for Profit in Iraq

January 4th, 2020 by Bulent Gokay

On January 2, 2020, a US airstrike killed a high-profile commander of Iran’s secretive Quds Force, Qassim Suleimani, a commander of Iran’s military forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East. Another man, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy of the militias known as the Popular Mobilization Units and a close adviser to Suleimani, was also killed in the airstrike near Baghdad’s airport.

Al-Muhandis and Suleimani were killed when their vehicle was hit on the road to the airport.

The Popular Mobilization had been fighting Islamic State forces alongside Iraqi government forces for years, and had increasingly come under attack themselves, with dozens of their fighters losing their lives in Iraq every year. Three days before the assassination of Al-Muhandis and Suleimani, 25 Popular Mobilization fighters had been killed by a US airstrike in Western Anbar. Al-Baghdadiya reported the mass killing: see this.

The death toll from the American bombardment of Al-Hashd Camp increased to 25 dead and 51 wounded

2019-12-30

 The Popular Mobilization Directorate announced, on Monday, the outcome of the American bombing of the crowd camp, which rose to 25 dead and 51 wounded. “The death toll from the martyrs and the wounded as a result of the American aggression that targeted the locations of the Popular Mobilization Forces in western Anbar is 25 dead and 51 wounded,” Rabiawi said in a statement to the Popular Mobilization website. He added, “The number of martyrs can be increased due to the presence of wounded people in critical condition and severe injuries.”

Suleimani’s Quds Force was a division of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, widely believed to support many Iran-backed groups, such as Hezbollah. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” the Defense Department said in its statement. “The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

What are those interests? And what has their protection meant for Iraqis?

After nearly two decades of war, Iraq has experienced its least violent year: 17 years after the invasion, during 2019 2,392 civilian deaths were recorded by Iraq Body Count. In its worst year, 2006, Iraq had witnessed the violent deaths of more than 29,500 civilians.

However, the monthly and yearly totals, assembled after the painstaking daily task of extracting the data from hundreds of reports, betray the true magnitude and impact of the war on Iraqi civilians.

During 2019 the death toll was lower than any other year, since the invasion. October witnessed the highest toll, with 361 killed; August the lowest, at 93. What demonstrates the nature of the security situation in the country though is that, yet again, the killings were almost daily.

Of the 2,392 civilians killed, 92 were children.

The greatest perpetrators of violence this year were government forces, which killed around 500 protesters during May, September, October and November. Another 25 protesters were massacred by a group of gunmen in Baghdad on December 6th.

Airstrikes that killed civilians were few, with 9 losing their lives in Turkish and US airstrikes:

  • January 25th, 4 were killed by Turkish strikes in Dohuk;
  • March 24th, 1 child was killed by US strikes in Oudan;
  • September 26th, 1 was killed when Turkish planes struck in Dohuk;
  • November 4th, 3 more civilians were killed in another Turkish airstrike in Sinjar.

Iraq is still unable or unwilling to provide security and protection to its population from threats –internal and external.

The vast majority of deaths recorded this year were, as every year, direct deaths from conflict violence, that is, deaths that resulted directly from the violent actions of participants to the conflict.

As in other countries of conflict, conflict parties were also involved in criminal activities that caused deaths, for example robberies, kidnappings for extortion, or trade in narcotics. The resulting deaths from those were also recorded, as the perpetrators were committing criminal acts and associated violence in order to finance or otherwise support their conflict activities. These criminal activities did not directly further military goals, nor were they political violence; however, they were committed in order to advance the conflict objectives of the perpetrators. Therefore, these activities were part of the conflict violence and evidence that the breakdown in security the conflict caused made those crimes not only possible, but tragically also very common.

Anti-government protests have erupted on a regular basis in Iraq since 2015. But the protests of September-December 2019 are the largest and bloodiest since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 16 years ago.

For four months, protesters have taken to the streets in Baghdad and towns and cities across the south of the country to demand jobs, basic services and an end to corruption. Hundreds of young people have been killed and thousands of others wounded in clashes with security forces.

Many Iraqis are frustrated and desperate that they are without clean water and electricity, and there is widespread poverty and high levels of unemployment.  The young protesters, most of them 15-25 years old, have risen against government corruption, lack of opportunity and deprivation, all of which leave them with dismal prospects. Expression of a ‘Saddam nostalgia’ is even noticeable among the new generation, under 30 years old, who became young adults after the invasion.

The BBC explained the reasons for the protests as ‘a narrow elite has been able to keep a firm grip on power because of a quota system that allocates positions to political parties based on sectarian and ethnic identity, encouraging patronage and corruption’, and ‘the protesters also angry at Iran’ because … [Iran] ‘has close links to Shia politicians who are part of the ruling elite.’ Due to Iran’s influence over Iraqi politics, the ‘protesters accuse Iran of complicity in what they see as Iraq’s governance failure and corruption’, the BBC reported.   Similarly, the New York Times reported  that the Iraqi demonstrators ‘demand the ousting of the government, an end to corruption and a halt to the overweening influence of Iran….the protesters’ focus reflects their frustration with the government’s failure to foster economic opportunity or deal with entrenched corruption.’  The Guardian too emphasised the link with Tehran, describing the events as ‘the uprising against the Tehran-backed authorities’.

This is the line presented by the US officials too. The U.S. stressed its concerns over the deaths of protesters in Iraq on 10 November in a statement: ‘Iraqis won’t stand by as the Iranian regime drains their resources’. Washington blacklisted three Iran-backed Iraqi paramilitary leaders over their alleged role in killings of anti-government protesters in Iraq and threatened future sanctions.  Senior U.S. Treasury officials said ‘Iraqis have a fundamental right to a political process that is free from foreign malign influence and the corruption that both comes with it and fuels it’, reported by the Reuters on 6 December 2019.

As many analysts have pointed out, the overwhelming motivations of the people who took to the streets in Iraq were the low standards of living, dismal economic and employment conditions, in particular high unemployment among the young people, inefficient welfare state and food shortages.  All these are similar to the conditions of those countries that witnessed serious protest movements in the early 2010s, the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ countries – Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria and others.

What has been less adequately reported is that all these countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) experienced an intense economic transformation, imposed by the IMF and the World Bank, during the previous couple of decades, away from the state-command economy model of ‘Arab Socialism’ of the 1960s and 70s, and towards market-dominated neoliberal capitalism in the 1980s and 90s.  Through the guidance and assistance of the IMF and the World Bank, the MENA region pursued neoliberal economic policies (entrepreneurial freedom, strong property rights, free markets, and free trade) which led to great income inequalities and a concentration of wealth among the small political elite and its cronies.

The ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings took place within the conditions of sharply increased poverty, very high youth unemployment and lack of opportunities for young people.  Youth unemployment was over 30 percent everywhere in the region, and in Syria and Jordan young people under the age of 30 constitute more than 70 percent of the unemployed workforce.

In the whole MENA region there was, and still is, a vivid mismatch between demography and economic structure: while demography is evolving, the economic structure is totally unresponsive to the needs of growing populations.  The harsh neoliberal policies of the 1990s and 2000s made the situation worse, much worse, rather than improve the economy and provide solutions.  The most obvious common feature of the principal storm centres – Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria – was far-reaching program of neo-liberal restructuring, which was directed by the IMF and put into practice quickly by the regimes, with similar devastating results. These included privatisation of almost all state owned enterprises, mass poverty, large scale unemployment, in particular growing youth unemployment, the lack of opportunities for university and college graduates, falling real wages and the accumulation of vast amounts of wealth in the hands of the country’s top ruling families.

In Egypt, for instance, the World Bank and the IMF prescribed extensive neoliberal policies since 1991. By the mid-2000s, more than a decade and a half neoliberal reforms brought the Egyptian society on the brink of a deep social crisis.  In line with the Economic Reform and Structural Adjustment Programme signed with the IMF in 1991, the public sector in Egypt was steadily privatised, and prices and rents liberalised (and increased sharply).  By 2005, 209 of the 314 public sector companies had been sold either wholly or in part, which was accompanied by massive lay-offs, and created extreme insecurity for those who were lucky enough to keep their jobs. Labour unrest increased from 2005 onwards, while high food prices and high inflation added to the suffering of the majority of people, as the businesses were celebrating positive growth rates and increased profit margins.  The World Bank reports show that ‘some 60 percent of Egypt’s population is either poor or vulnerable, and inequality is on the rise’. Egypt’s economy was ruined largely by a combination of the self-destructive policies of its regime and neoliberal policies imposed by the global financial bodies. The country’s economy suffered disastrously under an IMF and World Bank-imposed restructuring process.

The same course took place in Tunisia, Libya, Syria and other countries in the region.  These countries all started taking direct advice and loans from the IMF, the World Bank and bond markets in the 1990s, and since then their autocratic rulers had been consistently praised by these global agencies of neoliberalism, as well as the governments of the US, France and Britain.

Iraq, however, is a different story, in the sense that an exceptionally harsh neoliberal restructuring was introduced by a military invasion, led by the US army, in the most brutal and boldest way ever seen in the world.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by the Bush administration in the US, turned Iraq into a neoliberal utopia.  When Saddam Hussein’s regime was defeated and replaced by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by Paul Bremer, a series of extensive neoliberal measures were quickly introduced in its first month without any waiting period, from privatisation of 200 Iraqi state-owned companies to reducing corporate tax from 45 percent to 15 percent, and from allowing foreign firms to retain 100 percent of their Iraqi assets to a complete restructuring the Iraqi banking system.  Iraq’s oil revenues were put in a US-dominated development fund, the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), held in an account at the Federal Reserve in New York and used for restructuring expenditure.

According to a US government appointed audit’s reports to the US Congress in 2004, 2005 and 2006, Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction (SIGIR), there was poor delivery of contracts, overcharging, embezzlement, and general fraud by private contractors, and $8.8 billion of the $23 billion money held at DFI account remains unaccounted for.

The Coalition Provisional Authority ran the occupation regime during its first 14 months and directed the most extreme version of neoliberal restructuring put in practice ever in the world, enforcing the market as the organising and regulative principle of the state and society.  Even the IMF was alarmed and advised a more cautious approach.  In less than 14 months, Paul Bremer issued 26 orders, as a result of which the Iraqi state was deprived of economic sovereignty and control of its own affairs.  More than half a million Iraqi citizens abruptly lost their jobs, after which over 50 percent of the workforce became unemployed.  All these extensive neoliberal ‘shock programme of economic reforms’ were described by the Economist in September 2003 as a ‘Capitalist Dream’.

When the war started the economy of Iraq had already been in deep trouble, following the eight-year-long war against Iran in the 1980s, the first Gulf War of 1990-91, and UN imposed financial and trade embargo on Iraq since 1990.  On top of this, after the invasion, the Coalition Provisional Authority paid large sums of compensation from the Iraqi public sources to a number of international corporations, ostensibly as compensations for ‘lost profits’ or ‘decline of business’ due to Saddam Hussein’s aggressive behaviour in the region since 1990.  Sheraton received $11 million, Bechtel $7 million, Pepsi $3.8 million, Mobil $2.3 million, Kentucky Fried Chicken $321,000 and Toys R Us $190,000 – all US-based enterprises.  Israeli farmers received $8 million, supposedly because they were not able to harvest fully due to the threat from Saddam’s regime, and Israeli hoteliers and travel agencies received $15 million.  A detailed account of these compensations were given in the book by Eric Herring and Glen Rangwala, Iraq in Fragments. The Occupation and its Legacy

During the first year of the occupation, about $50 billion of reconstruction contracts were commissioned to various US corporations, including Halliburton, Bechtel, SkylinkUSA, Stevedoring Services of America, and BearingPoint. During the same period, only 2 percent of the contracts were given to Iraqi firms.

Research by the Financial Times showed in 2013 that the top 10 American and foreign contractors in Iraq have secured business worth at least $72 billion between them.  Prof David Whyte of Liverpool University describes this economic performance of the Coalition Provisional Authority as ‘one of the most audacious and spectacular crimes of theft in modern history. … The suspension of the normal rule of law by the occupying powers, in turn, encouraged Coalition Provisional Authority tolerance of, and participation in, the theft of public funds in Iraq. State-corporate criminality in the case of occupied Iraq must therefore be understood as part of a wider strategy of political and economic domination’.

The war in Iraq officially ended in 2011, when President Obama declared the withdrawal of the troops in October and the last US soldiers left Iraq on 18 December.  What was left behind, however, a deeply traumatized country with a totally bankrupt economy.  According to the UN, seven million Iraqis were living below the poverty line.  One in five of young men and significantly more young women under 24 are unemployed, in a country where almost 60 percent of the population is under 24. The draconian measures undertaken after the 2003 invasion left behind a seriously weakened Iraq in every sense.  A large amount of Iraqi money was paid to US contractors to implement local projects, many of them never finished, drowned in a sea of bureaucracy, corruption and open theft.  No one knew how many such contractors were hired and how much money were paid to them for the tasks, many of which remained incomplete. In 2009, there were about 13,000 contractors employed by US agencies.

Iraq has experienced several parliamentary elections since the invasion, the first one in 2005 and the latest in 2018. At least fifteen PMs came to power representing different political parties/coalitions. None of them, however, managed to satisfy the serious and rightful demands of the Iraqi people: ending corruption, increasing living standards, creating jobs and opportunities for increasing number of young educated people, providing security, and proper funding for the services.  There are, of course, many local reasons for this failure, from increasing security concerns to the violent civil war in next door Syria, and to longstanding divisions of the country along ethnic and religious lines.

However, the desperate state of the economy, lack of opportunities for the local people, sharply increased corruption as a result of contracting system put in place by the US pro-Consul Bremer contributed to the miserable state of affairs seriously.  At times these different factors converge, and at times they pull against each other, but the state of the economy has remained as the most significant context and the obstacle for any Iraqi government to deal with the serious problems of the country.  Successive Iraqi governments pursued the project of neoliberal transformation of Iraq, sometimes willingly, but mostly reluctantly and as a result of already tightly established links with the IMF and global financial institutions through loans and debt rescheduling.  Iraq’s debt was restructured on terms that made the country subject to fully applying IMF austerity policies, even after the occupation ended officially in 2011.  In 2006, for instance, the government accepted ‘fuel liberalisation programme’, following the IMF recommendations, that was basically cutting off all subsidies of fuel and gas products, which resulted in a sudden explosion of prices of fuel and gas-related items.  The bold neoliberal move by Coalition Provisional Authority following the invasion in 2003, reinforcement of macro-economic stabilisation, cuts in government expenditures, ending state subsidies, and the opening up of the Iraqi economy to foreign investment by selling State-Owned Enterprises, have had dire consequences for the people of Iraq. All these bold neoliberal measures contributed directly to produce a dystopian economy and a failed state, incapable of controlling its own affairs.

‘The battle of peace has to be fought on two fronts’, declared Edward Stettinius Jr., US Secretary of State in June 1945.

‘The first is the security where victory spells freedom from fear. The second is the economic and social front where victory means freedom from want. Only victory on both fronts can assure the world of an enduring peace’.

It was very much in the spirit of the UN, the spirit of cooperation to work towards peace and prosperity. It was only under those conditions, of peace and prosperity, that security was going to be achieved, in any country, in any community, in any area of human life. Security was to be understood in terms of freedom from want (prosperity) and freedom from fear (peace).

While the invasion of Iraq was 16 years ago, the post-invasion war in Iraq continues to this day. Even the war’s quietest months have been punctuated by moments of mass horror, and barely a day has passed without reports of civilians being shot or blown up. Despite any number of official declarations, there has been no ‘turning point’ towards peace, no ‘mission accomplished’ for ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’.

An entire generation of Iraqi children has known little other than life in a country riven by violence, fear, hopelessness, internal displacement and poverty. All around them, the war’s fearful legacy persists.‘We Want a True Homeland’, shouted the young protesters this year. It is common for those living outside it to see Iraq as a country of violence, of war and of constant upheaval; a country where the West has ‘tried and failed’ to provide security; as a country of terror, of ISIS, of human rights abuses and tribal conflict. Others may see it as a developing democracy, or a budding Western-style economy trying to bloom in a barren, unstable region. It is common for us living outside it to forget that this ‘trial and error’ state is also the homeland of millions of people.

The invasion in 2003 was supported by, among others, those who saw a great opportunity for Iraq to be ‘reconstructed’. The invading coalition was going to help.

On 6 April 2003, while Iraq was still under attack from coalition forces, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated, ‘There has got to be an effective administration from day one. People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that’s a coalition responsibility’. By the time the Iraqi people had a say in choosing a government, three years later, the key economic and political decisions about their country’s future had been made by their occupiers.

American and British plans for Iraq’s future economy went beyond ‘reconstruction’. The emerging state was going to be treated ‘as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neoliberals can design their dream economy: fully privatized, foreign-owned and open for business’ (Naomi Klein, 10 April 2003). Those whose homeland it was, the Iraqi public, were absent from these decisions. Without any democratic process, the ‘charity’, the ‘gift’ of liberal and democratic Western states was barely disguised exploitation. In the name of that ‘democratic’ dream of a privatised, foreign-owned and ‘reconstructed’ Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

As Iraq was being bombed by the coalition, Klein predicted,

‘A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverized by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country has been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their newfound “freedom”–for which so many of their loved ones perished–comes pre-shackled with irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy.’

Almost 17 years later, we see the complete breakdown of trust in the political system; we see corruption, brutality and violence. Protesters carrying the Iraqi flag are demanding their homeland, as their government violates and abuses their human rights, as security forces and anti-riot police open fire using live ammunition and tear gas. As their ‘democratic government’ fails to provide opportunities, social, health and educational safeguards for its children. As, like every one of its governments since 2006, it continues to fail to provide its people with any kind of security.

Security does not simply involve and is not limited to physical attacks resulting in death or injury. That ‘only’ 2,337 civilians were killed this year, compared to 3,300 civilians killed the year before and 13,000 the year before that, does not mean that Iraq is now safer, or more secure. It does so only in a very narrow understanding of security. However, security is a much broader concept or category that includes a commitment to human rights, justice, prosperity and the creation of political, social, environmental, economic and cultural systems that are the building blocks of survival, livelihood and human dignity. In a state rife with injustice, poverty, violations of human rights, government brutality and continuous foreign intervention, there can be no security. There can also be no democracy.

However, Iraq’s devastation was not unpredictable. The neoliberal democratic system that was imposed on the country could not have produced a ‘Western-style democracy’, or the outcomes expected in a developed nation. Highly developed nations face no real threat of major war and enjoy economic prosperity, comparatively low levels of crime, and enduring political and social stability. Despite warnings to the contrary by our security services, even the threat of terrorism is minor. Iraq, on the other hand, was and still is a weak state. Between 2003 and 2020 the only constants have been the following: communal violence, terrorism, poverty, weapons proliferation, crime, political instability, social breakdown, riots, disorder and economic failure. In Iraq we observe the lack of basic security that exists in ‘zones of instability’, where Iraq, after 16 years of ‘reconstruction’, still remains.

As in all weak states, the primary security threats facing the Iraqi population originate primarily from internal, domestic sources. In such states, the more the ruling elites try to establish effective state rule, the more they provoke insurgency. Despite it being declared a democracy, Iraq lacks regime security. In Iraq and other ‘liberated and democratised’ states those internal/domestic security threats have gone hand-in-hand with the external threat posed by a collaborative external actor and the neoliberal destruction it brought to the country.

It was thought –even promised- that an Iraq free of its dictator would become a strong state. A democratic, liberal state, much like those in the developed world. However, Iraq has become a state even weaker, much weaker and less secure, than it was under Saddam Hussein’s iron rule. The continuing protests in Iraq and the killing of protesters in their hundreds by government forces, combined with a persisting insurgency, demonstrate the lack of identification of the population with ‘the state’. What we see contributing to this weakness is the new colonialism masking as political and economic development, through the principle and the process of globalisation. Neoliberal ideology has been promoted to the developing world by the chief advocates of globalisation, the IMF and the World Bank, through their liberalisation programme.

Yes, as predicted, neoliberalism has fostered inequality; a growing unemployment that has gone hand in hand with poverty and mass migration. Globalisation makes security interdependent; terrorism, gun crime and illegal migration are spill over effects of structural, political and economic insecurity in the developing world. Iraq today shows how globalisation incites rebellion and radicalisation.

The advancement of the neoliberal agenda by industrialised states through globalisation has failed to deliver the economic stability and growth it promised. Instead, globalisation continues to increase the gap between rich and poor, between and within states.  Ultimately, inequality is the biggest threat to global security.

Iraq’s neoliberal democracy ‘triumph’ can be seen in some of the victims during 2019:

A doctor trying to treat injured protesters in Baghdad was shot dead by security forces on November 6th.

Two babies died in a hospital in Nasiriya, when tear gas filled their ward, on November 11th.

The members of a family (2 men, 2 women and 4 children) were shot dead by Islamic State members in Iftikhar, on July 24th. Another family of 7 was executed by Islamic State forces in Mosul, on August 25th. Two of them were children.

When an IED was put in a bus in Karbala on September 20th, 12 passengers died.

Iraq has now become the perfect example of physical, political and economic insecurity, destroyed by its purported saviours.

A true homeland?

In the words of Iraqi poet Adnan Al-Sayegh,

The invaders come after the tyrants,

the tyrants come after the invaders

and nothing happens…

they replace handcuffs

with other handcuffs…

 

But they destroyed us

Built a prison from our dried blood

And called it a homeland

Then said: be grateful for your country

*

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

Bulent Gokay is Professor of International Relations at Keele University.

Lily Hamourtziadou is Senior Lecturer in Security Studies at Birmingham City University and Senior Researcher for Iraq Body Count (IBC).

Note

[2] All casualty figures are from IBC database.

Featured image is from South Front

The world underwent a seismic change on September 11th, 2001 when the biggest, most blatant false flag terror even yet seen took place–the attack on the World Trade Centre in NYC and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The official narrative blamed Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda Islamic terrorist group, a complete fabrication that has had far-reaching consequences.

The creation of the Islamic terrorist bogeyman began long before 9-11, the stereotypical fanatic menacingly waving AK47s and RPGs while screaming incoherently about Allah has been a mass media meme for decades–the 1985 Hollywood blockbuster Back To The Future featured a gang of Libyan terrorists, a decade later the James Cameron-Arnold Schwarzenegger movie True Lies had a plot revolving around Islamic terrorists and stolen nuclear weapons.

Clearly, powerful, shadowy figures in the West have sought to inculcate the minds of the public with the notion that Islamic terror was the new threat to peace and prosperity, to the Western, capitalistic way of life. They have used the mass media to drive this train of thought and sadly, they have been all too successful. A string of further false flag terror events blamed on Islamic fanatics has played out in countries such as Great Britain, France and Germany, the Western public has been sold on the idea that Islamic fundamentalists are a clear and present danger.

It is impossible to gain any meaningful insight into the true nature of these events and the forces driving them from the Western media, both the mainstream and ‘alternative’ forms have been utterly corrupted and co-opted. However, there are still those who seek to subvert the Western narrative and publish the truth about the geopolitics and Machiavellian machinations behind the events of the post 9-11 world.

One such figure is Pakistani author Sajjad Shaukat, in his book, Invisible Balance of Power, first published in 2005 and now republished fourth time in a revised edition, Shaukat examines the phenomena of terrorism and explains how there are both state and non-state actors behind the scenes. An example of the former would be the United States, of the latter, Al-Qaeda is the prime example. The book is packed with solid research and delves far deeper into this murky world than any Western author dares tread.

Shaukat is remarkably even-handed, his analyses notably free of prejudice as he compares and contrasts the tactics and techniques employed by both sides in the so-called ‘War On Terror’. The book contains detailed analysis of Al-Qaeda’s methods–the beheadings, the targetted assassinations, the hostage taking, the suicide bombings and the ambush attacks using improvised explosive devices. However, it also covers the methods used by the United States and it’s allies–the CIA black site prisons and their torture cells, the drone strikes, the kidnappings, the use of private military companies and their mercenaries.

Through painstaking research and in-depth analysis, Shaukat makes a compelling case that both sides in the War On Terror have employed the most cruel and ruthless terroristic methods and are responsible for the deaths of countless innocent civilians, the great majority of them citizens of Islamic countries.

The author goes further by placing this insightful analysis of the “War On Terror” against the backdrop of the global financial, social and political situation and giving a prescient viewpoint on how international finance and politics have been and will continue to be influenced by the perpetual nature of the wars involving both sides of the “War on Terror”; how social and economic instability has been created. One might consider this viewpoint to be almost clairvoyant, given recent unrest in France by the Gilets Jaunes and the ongoing violence in Afghanistan, to name just two examples.

Besides, author’s future assessments such as failure of the power factor or role force by the US-led countries in this ‘different war’ against the non-sovereign entities, prolonged war on terror, entanglement of the US/NATO countries in Afghanistan, increase in the cost of war, internal crises inside America, loss of America’s leverage of bargaining even on the small countries, economic instability in the world, state terrorism, resulting into more terrorism by the non-state actors as noted in case of Indian-Israeli brutal tactics on the Kashmiris and Palestinians, war in Syria, promotion of sectarian divide in the Islamic countries on the basis of Shia and Sunni, rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, war-like situation between Syria and Israel, between Iran and Israel, between India and Pakistan, rise of Russia and China-their collective efforts for moving the world to the multi-polar system etc. proved true.

Shaukat also presents the reader with a set of proposals for resolving this mess, including reconciliation of warring parties and reform of the UN to empower the less powerful, less developed nations, thus leaving the reader with a sense of hope that this global conflict can be resolved.

Even if you do not agree with all of his analyses, you will come away from reading this book armed with a far deeper and more realistic understanding of the post 9-11 world than you could ever hope to garner from consumption of the Western media and that makes it compelling reading for all those who wish to develop a greater, more accurate knowledge of this world we live in.

*

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

Ian Greenhalgh is a British photographer, writer and historian with a particular interest in military history and the real causes of conflicts. His studies in history and background in the media industry have given him a keen insight into the use of mass media as a creator of conflict in the modern world. His favored areas of study include state sponsored terrorism, media manufactured reality and the role of intelligence services in manipulation of populations and the perception of events.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Invisible Balance of Power”. The Phenomenon of Terrorism, The “War on Terrorism”